SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
SermonIndex.net : Christian Books : Letter C

A Dictionary Of Christian Biography And Literature by Henry Wace

Letter C

Caecilia, st., Roman lady
Caecilia (1), St., a Roman lady, one of the four principal virgins and martyrs of the Western Church, who is commemorated in both the Latin and Greek churches on Nov.22, but of whom we have hardly any authentic account.

The veneration paid to her can be traced to a very early period. Her martyrdom and that of her three companions is referred to in nearly all the most ancient Latin breviaries and missals -- e.g. in the Sacramentary of pope Gregory; the breviary and missal of Milan ascribed to St. Ambrose; the Mozarabic or Spanish liturgy, with proper prayers and prefaces; and a grand office for her feast is contained in the Gallican missal, which is believed to have been in use in Gaul from the 6th cent. down to the time of Charlemagne. Her name appears in the Martyrology attributed to Jerome, in that of Bede, and in all the others, and her martyrdom is placed at Rome. Yet it is very difficult, says Tillemont, to find her true place in the chronology. The earliest writer who mentions her is Fortunatus, bp. of Poictiers, at the end of the 6th cent., who states that she died in Sicily between a.d.176 and 180, under the emperor M. Aurelius or Commodus. The Life of St. Caecilia by Symeon Metaphrastes, a hagiographer of the 10th cent., makes her contemporary with Urban, and places her martyrdom at Rome under Alexander Severus, c.230; the Greek menologies place it under Diocletian (284-305). On the other hand, the Roman calendar drawn up at Rome under pope Liberius, c. a.d.352-366, contains no mention of her. This, indeed, is not a complete list of martyrs, but a list of the chief feasts (Rossi, i.116). Her body must, however, have been there not long after this period; for in the time of pope Symmachus (a.d.498) there was a church of St. Caecilia at Rome, in which he held a council.

The account of her life and martyrdom by Symeon Metaphrastes, to be found in Surius, is of no authority. The narrative is full of marvels and improbabilities, and the internal evidence alone is quite sufficient to prove its legendary character, though some critics have of late endeavoured to uphold its credibility, and to refer its compilation in its present form to the commencement of the 5th cent. (cf. Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs Sacrés, vol. ii. Paris, 1859, and see below). There can be little doubt that these Acts of St. Caecilia were composed to be read in the church of the saint on the day of her feast. According to the legend, she was born at Rome of a noble family. She resolved, from love to her Lord, to devote herself to Him by a vow of perpetual virginity. Her parents wished her to marry Valerian, a young Roman, who at that time was not a Christian. She went through the marriage ceremonies; but when alone with her young husband, told him of her vow, and Valerian allowed her to keep it. At her entreaty, he sought out the retreat of Urban, and received baptism at his hands. On returning to his spouse, wearing the white robe of a neophyte, he found her praying in her chamber, and an angel of God at her side. In answer to Valerian's prayer, the angel promised that his brother, Tiburtius, should become a Christian, and foretold that both brothers should receive the crown of martyrdom. In a.d.230 Turcius Almachius, prefect of the city, took advantage of the emperor's absence to give free vent to his hatred of the Christians, and daily put many to death. Valerian and Tiburtius were soon brought before his tribunal. After being scourged, the two brothers were commanded to offer incense to the gods. On refusing, they were condemned to be beheaded and given in charge to Maximus. So moved was he by their exhortations that in the night he and all his family, together with the lictors, believed and were baptized. On the morrow his prisoners were beheaded at the place called Pagus Triopius on the Via Appia at the fourth mile from Rome. When the news reached the prefect that Maximus also had become a Christian, he ordered him to be scourged to death with leaden balls. Soon afterwards he sent his officers to Caecilia and bade her sacrifice to the gods. As she refused, he commanded her to be shut up in her bath, and that the furnace should be heated with wood seven times hotter than it was wont to be. But a heavenly dew falling upon the spouse of Christ refreshed and cooled her body, and preserved her from harm. A day and a night the prefect waited for news of her death. Then he sent one of his soldiers to behead her; but though the sword smote her neck thrice, the executioner could not cut off her head, and he departed, leaving her on the floor of her bath bathed in blood. For three days longer she lived, never ceasing to exhort the people whom she loved to continue steadfast in the Lord, and watching over the distribution of her last alms. Having given her house to the church, she gave up her spirit into the hands of the living God. Urban and his deacons buried her in the cemetery of Calixtus on the Via Appia near the third milestone. Her house he consecrated to God as a church for ever. It is alleged that her body was found at Rome by pope Paschal I. (a.d.821), in the cemetery of Praetextatus, adjoining that of Calixtus on the Via Appia, and that it was removed by him to the church of St. Caecilia, which he was then rebuilding, and which stands, as is said, on the site of her house, at the extremity of the Trastevere. Here, it is said, her body was again discovered at the end of the 16th cent. in the time of Clement VIII. Baronius has given a long account of the circumstances connected with this pretended discovery, of which he was a witness (s. ann.821).

The legend of this saint has furnished the subject of several remarkable pictures. The oldest representation of her is a rude picture or drawing on the wall of the catacomb called the cemetery of San Lorenzo, of the date probably of the 6th or 7th cent. (See d'Agincourt, plate xi.) In the 13th cent. Cimabue painted an altar-piece, representing different episodes in the life of the saint for the church dedicated to her at Florence. In both these she appears with the martyr's crown. In fact, before the 15th cent. St. Caecilia is seldom depicted with her musical instruments. She has generally the martyr's palm and the crown of red or white roses. When she came to be regarded as the patron saint of musicians is unknown, nor have we any record of her use of instruments of music. The most celebrated representation of St. Caecilia as patroness of this art is the picture by Raphael (c. a.d.1513), now in the gallery of Bologna.

In 1584, in the time of pope Pius V., an academy of music was founded at Rome, and placed under the tutelage of St. Caecilia. Thenceforward she came to be more and more regarded as queen of harmony, and Dryden's well-known ode has rendered her familiar to us in this character.

For a more detailed account, we may refer to the following: de Vitis Sanctorum, ed. Surius (Venice, 1581), tom. vi. p.161, s.d. Nov.22; Acta Sanctorum, by the Bollandists, s.d. April 14, p.204; Baronii Annales s. an. a.d.821; Tillemont, vol. iii. pp.259-689; S. Caeciliae Acta a Laderchio (Rome, 1722), 2 vols.4to, incorporating the work of Bosio, with large additions; Sacred and Legendary Art, by Mrs. Jameson, 3rd ed. (Lond.1857), pp.583-600; Ceillier, Histoire des Auteurs Sacrés, vol. ii. (Paris, 1859); S. Cécile, par Dom. Guéranger (Paris, 1874).

[T.D.C.M.]

Here may be added the ingenious explanation, given by bp. Fitzgerald, of how St. Caecilia became regarded as the patron of music. She is described as steeling her heart at her marriage festivities against all the allurements to sensual pleasure, and among these, special mention is made of the |symphonia instrumentorum| to which she refused to hearken; but |organis cantantibus die nuptiarum| she made melody in her heart to God, saying, |May my heart and body be undefiled.| The necessities of the pictorial art demanded that each saint should be depicted with an appropriate and distinctive symbol. Bp. Fitzgerald suggests that St. Caecilia was hence represented in early pictures with the organ prominent in her Acts; and that she was thence imagined to be a musician by those who did not understand that she was only represented with an organ as other saints are depicted with the instrument of torture by which they suffered. We may certainly believe that Dryden's |drew an angel down| had its origin in a misunderstanding of pictures. The Acts relate that on her wedding night she told Valerianus that she was under the protection of an angel who would punish him if he did not respect her chastity, and whom he could see for himself if he would be baptized. This no doubt is the angel who appears in pictures of St. Caecilia, and there is no ground for the idea that the angel came down to listen to her music.

Erbes (Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, ix.1) thinks that the Acts of St. Caecilia are not earlier than the end of the 5th cent. They not only exhibit a use of St. Augustine's work on the Trinity which appeared in a.d.416, but coincidences in language, as well as in substance, make it probable that the whole story of Caecilia is derived from the story of Martinianus and Maxima told by Victor Vitensis, I.30. This would bring down the date of the Acts to c. a.d.490. Erbes remarks that the original day of commemoration of St. Caecilia was Sept.16: Nov.22 really commemorates the dedication of the church of St. Caecilia, which probably took place under Sixtus III. between 434 and 440. Concerning the neighbourhood of the burial-place of St. Caecilia in the catacombs to that of certain popes, Erbes holds that in the year 236 a suitable burial-place was being prepared for the body of Pontianus, then brought from Sardinia, as well as for that of Anteros who had died in Rome, that the site was furnished by the Caecilian family, and that in order to make room for the two bishops the body of Caecilia was moved to an adjacent side chamber. As to how Caecilia suffered martyrdom we have no authentic information.

[G.S.]

Caecilianus, archdeacon and bishop of Carthage
Caecilianus (2), first archdeacon, then (a.d.311) bp., of Carthage. Of importance in connexion with the Donatist controversy. When archdeacon, he resolutely supported his bishop Mensurius in opposing the fanatical craving for martyrdom. The Christianity of N. Africa exhibited an extravagance in this respect which reached its height after Diocletian's persecution. Men courted death that they might be honoured as martyrs and confessors; some, without doubt, in a spirit which commands our respect, but others in a spirit which fostered the supposition that the martyr's cross would wash away for eternity the misery, follies, sins, and crimes of a whole life.

On the death of Mensurius, Caecilian was nominated as his successor. The part he had taken against the would-be martyrs was then brought up against him. The religious world of Carthage divided itself broadly into two sections, the moderate and rigoristic parties, or the supporters and opponents of the principles of Caecilian. At the head of the latter was a devout and wealthy lady named Lucilla, who had been severely rebuked by the archdeacon for superstitious veneration for martyrs' relics. The rigoristic party wished to fill the vacant see with one of their own followers. Caecilian's party hastened matters, and the archdeacon was consecrated by Felix, bp. of Aptunga; whether in the presence of any Numidian bishops or not seems uncertain. Secundus, primate of Numidia and bp. of Tigisis, was presently invited to Carthage by the rigoristic party. He came, attended by 70 bishops, and cited Caecilian before them. Felix of Aptunga was denounced as a |traditor| (i.e. one who had delivered up the sacred writings in his possession), and consequently it was claimed that any ordination performed by him was invalid. Caecilian himself was charged with unnecessary and heartless severity to those who had visited the confessors in prison; he was denounced as a |tyrannus| and a |carnifex.| He declined to appear before an assembly so prejudiced; but professed his willingness to satisfy them on all personal matters, and offered, if right was on their side, to lay down his episcopal office, and submit to re-ordination. Secundus and the Numidian bishops answered by excommunicating him and his party, and ordaining as bishop the reader Majorinus, a member of Lucilla's household.

The church of N. Africa now became a prey to schism. The party of Caecilian broke off from that of Majorinus, and the Christian world was scandalized by fulminations, excommunications, invectives, charges, and countercharges. Both parties confidently anticipated the support of the state; but Constantine, now emperor of this part of the Roman world, took the side of the Caecilianists. In his largesse to the Christians of the province, and in his edicts favourable to the church there, he expressly stipulated that the party of Majorinus should be excluded: their views were, in his opinion, the |madness| of men of |unsound mind.| The rigoristic party appealed to the justice of the emperor, and courted full inquiry to be conducted in Gaul -- at a distance, that is, from the spot where passions and convictions were so strong and one-sided. A council met a.d.313 at Rome, in the Lateran, presided over by Melchiades (Miltiades), bp. of Rome, who had as his assessors the bishops of Cologne, Arles, and seventeen others. Caecilian appeared with ten bishops; Donatus, bp. of Casae Nigrae, in Numidia, headed the party of Majorinus. The personal charges against Caecilian were examined and dismissed, and his party proclaimed the representatives of the orthodox Catholic church; Donatus himself was declared to have violated the laws of the church, and his followers were to be allowed to retain their dignity and office only on condition of reunion with Caecilian's party. The bitterness of this decision was modified by Caecilian's friendly proposal of compromise; but his advances were rejected, and the cry of injustice raised. It was wrong, the rigorists pleaded, that the opinion of twenty should overrule that of seventy; and they demanded first that imperial commissioners should investigate matters at Carthage itself, and that then a council should be summoned to examine their report, and decide upon its information. Constantine met their wish. Jurists went to Carthage, collected documents, tabulated the statements of witnesses, and laid their report before the bishops assembled (a.d.314) at Arles. This council, presided over by Marinus, bishop of the see, and composed of about 200 persons, was the most important ecclesiastical assembly the Christian world had yet seen; and its decisions have been of permanent value to the church. As regarded Caecilian personally, the validity of his ordination was confirmed, the charge raised against his consecrator, Felix, being proved baseless; and as regarded the general questions debated -- such as traditorship, its proof or disproof; ordination by traditors, when valid or not; baptism and re-baptism -- canons of extreme importance were passed. [Arles, Synod of, in D. C. A.]

The temper displayed by the victors was not calculated to soothe the conquered; and an appeal was at once made from the council to the emperor himself. Constantine was irritated; but, after some delay, ordered the discussion of the question before himself personally. This occurred at Milan (a.d.316). The emperor confirmed the previous decisions of Rome and Arles, and followed up his judgment by laws and edicts confiscating the goods of the party of Majorinus, depriving them of their churches, and threatening to punish their rebellion with death.

From this time the schism in the N. African church lost its purely personal aspect, and became a stern religious contest on questions of discipline. [[85]Donatism.] Caecilian lived to c. a.d.345. (For authorities, etc., see Donatism.)

[J.M.F.]

Caesarius, of Nazianzus
Caesarius (2), St., of Nazianzus, physician, son of Gregory bp. of Nazianzus, brother of St. Gregory of the same place, and youngest of the family, born probably c. a.d.330. His death occurred in a.d.368 or 369. The name is simply a derivative from Caesar, originally adopted in compliment to the reigning family.

Authorities. -- The funeral oration by his brother, St. Gregory Nazianzen (the 7th, in some ed. the 10th); two letters addressed by Gregory to Caesarius and one to the Praeses Sophronius (numbered 17, 18, 19, or, more commonly, 50, 51, 52), and a few lines in the Carmen de Vitâ Suâ of the same. Photius, Bibliotheca Cod.210 (p.168 ed. Dekker, Berolini, 1824).

Life. -- According to the testimony of his brother, Caesarius owed much to the careful training received from his parents. He betook himself to Alexandria, |the workshop of every sort of education,| for better instruction in physical science than he could obtain in Palestine. There he behaved as a model student, being very careful in the matter of companionship, and earnest in pursuit of knowledge, more especially of geometry and astronomy. This last-named science he studied, says his panegyrist, in such wise as to gain the good without the evil -- a remark readily intelligible to those who are aware how deeply a fatalistic astrology was at that period associated with the study of astronomy.

Refusing a post of honour and emolument at Byzantium, he came home for a time, but returned to the court and was much honoured by Julian. There is a slight, but not perhaps irreconcilable, discrepancy between the funeral oration delivered by Gregory and the letter (17 or 51) which Gregory addressed to his brother. The oration seems to depict Caesarius as from the first spurning all offers of Julian, but the letter severely rebukes Caesarius for becoming a member of the imperial household, and taking charge of the treasury. Such a step is called a scandal in a bishop's son, and a great grief to his mother. Caesarius, however, finally avowed himself a Christian, and broke with Julian. His conduct, together with that of Gregory, caused Julian to exclaim, |Oh happy father! oh unhappy sons!| Under subsequent emperors, more especially under Valens, Caesarius more than regained his former honours, and became a quaestor of Bithynia. A remarkable escape from a terrible earthquake at Nicaea, apparently c. a.d.367 or 368, to which many distinguished men fell victims, induced Caesarius, at his brother's suggestion, to arrange for retirement from worldly cares. He received Baptism, and soon after died.

The Pusteis or Quaestiones (sive Dialogi) de Rebus Divinis, attributed to this physician, may be safely ascribed to some Caesarius. But the name was not an uncommon one, and some considerations seem to shew that the author was not Caesarius of Nazianzus. Photius treats the supposed authorship as merely a current unexamined tradition, and the book refers to Maximus, who lived subsequently.

[J.G.C.]

Caesarius, bishop of Arles
Caesarius (3), St., sometimes called of Châlons (Cabillonensis seu Cabellinensis) from his birthplace Châlons-sur-Saône; but more usually known as Caesarius of Arles (Arelatensis) from his see, which he occupied for forty years. He was certainly the foremost ecclesiastic in the Gaul of his own age. The date of his birth lies between a.d.468 and 470; the date of his death is Aug.27, 542.

Authorities. -- (1) The biography, written by his admiring disciple, St. Cyprian, bp. of Toulon (Tolonensis) with the aid of other ecclesiastics (ed. by d'Achery and Mabillon in the Acta Sanctorum Ord. S. Benedicti, Venet.1733, tom. i. p.636, et sqq., also in the Bollandists' Acta Sanctorum under date of Aug.27).? (2) His will, first published by Baronius (Annal. tom. vi. ad ann.508) from archives preserved at Arles; also given by Surius, l.c.; a document of some interest for the student of Roman law, but thought by Brugsch (archives of the Society of Ancient History) to be a forgery of Hincmar of Rheims.? (3) Acts of various councils, over all of which Caesarius presided (Labbe, Concilia, tom. ii. pp.995-1098, ed. Parisiis, 1714).? (4) The Regula ad Monachos and Regula ad Virgines, drawn up by him for a monastery and a convent of his own foundation (ed. by Holstenius in his Codex Regularum; and by P. de Cointe in his Annales Ecclesiastici Francorum). Trithemius, fixing the date of Caesarius much too late, fell into the error of supposing him to be a Benedictine.? (5) His sermons. Of these 40 were pubd. at Basle in 1558; 46 in a Bibliotheca Patrum, ed. at Leyden in 1677; 14 more in another Bibl. Patr. of Gallandi, Venice 1776 (cf. Oudin in Comment. de Script. Eccles. vol. i. p.1339); and 102, formerly ascribed to St. Augustine, are by the Benedictine editors assigned to Caesarius (Appendix to tom. v. of the works of St. Augustine). Others have been separately pubd. by Baluz; but Neander justly remarks that a complete collection of his sermons, conveying so much important information respecting the character of Caesarius and his times, still remains a desideratum (Church Hist. vol. v. p.4, note). Cf. also A. Malnory, St. Césaire, évêque d'Arles (Paris, 1894); Arnold, Cesarius von Arelate, (Leipz.1894).

Life. -- Caesarius was born at Châlons of pious parents. His sister Caesaria afterwards presided over the convent which he founded, and to her he addressed his Regula ad Virgines. At the age of thirteen he betook himself to the famous monastery of Lerins (Lerinum), where he rapidly became master of all which the learning and discipline of the place could impart. Having injured his health by austerities, he was sent to Arles (Arelate) to recruit. There the bp. Eonus, having made his acquaintance, ordained him deacon and then presbyter. For three years he presided over a monastery in Arles; but of this building no vestige is now left.

At the death of Eonus the clergy, citizens, and persons in authority proceeded, as Eonus himself had suggested, to elect Caesarius, sincerely against his own wish, to the vacant see. He was consecrated in a.d.502, being probably about 33 years of age. In the fulfilment of his new duties he was courageous and unworldly, but yet exhibited great power of kindly adaptation. He took great pains to induce the laity to join in the sacred offices, and encouraged inquiry into points not made clear in his sermons. He also bade them study Holy Scripture at home, and treat the word of God with the same reverence as the sacraments. He was specially zealous in redeeming captives, even selling church ornaments for this purpose.

A notary named Licinianus accused Caesarius to Alaric as one who desired to subjugate the civitas of Arles to the Burgundian rule. Caesarius was exiled to Bordeaux, but was speedily, on the discovery of his innocence, allowed to return. He interceded for the life of his calumniator. Later, when Arles was besieged by Theodoric, apparently c. a.d.512, he was again accused of treachery and imprisoned. An interview with the Ostrogothic king at Ravenna in a.d.513 speedily dispelled these troubles, and the remainder of his episcopate was passed in peace.

The directions of Caesarius for the conduct of monks and nuns have been censured as pedantic and minute. They certainly yielded to the spread of the rising Benedictine rule, but must be judged by their age and in the light of the whole spirit of monasticism.

As the occupant of an important see, the bishop of Arles exercised considerable influence, official as well as personal. Caesarius was liberal in the loan of sermons, and sent suggestions for discourses to priests and even bishops living in Spain, Italy, Gaul, and France (i.e. the province known as the Isle of France). The great doctrinal question of his age and country was that of semi-Pelagianism. Caesarius, though evidently a disciple of St. Augustine, displayed in this respect considerable independence of thought. His vigorous denial of anything like predestination to evil has caused a difference in the honour paid to his memory, according as writers incline respectively towards the Jesuit or Jansenist views concerning divine grace.

The most important local council over which Caesarius presided was that of Orange. Its statements on the subject of grace and free agency have been justly eulogized by modern historians (see, e.g., Canon Bright's Church History, ch. xi. ad fin.). The following propositions are laid down in canon 25: |This also do we believe, in accordance with the Catholic faith, that after grace received through baptism, all the baptized are able and ought, with the aid and co-operation of Christ, to fulfil all duties needful for salvation, provided they are willing to labour faithfully. But that some men have been predestinated to evil by divine power, we not only do not believe, but if there be those who are willing to believe so evil a thing, we say to them with all abhorrence anathema. This also do we profess and believe to our soul's health, that in every good work, it is not we who begin, and are afterwards assisted by Divine mercy, but that God Himself, with no preceding merits on our part, first inspires within us faith and love.| On the express ground that these doctrines are as needful for the laity as for the clergy, certain distinguished laymen (illustres ac magnifci viri) were invited to sign these canons. They are accordingly subscribed by 8 laymen, and at least 12 bishops, including Caesarius. [[86]Pelagianism.]

As a preacher, Caesarius displayed great knowledge of Holy Scripture, and was eminently practical in his exhortations. Besides reproving ordinary vices of humanity, he had often to contend against lingering pagan superstitions, as auguries, heathen rites on the calends, etc. His sermons on O.T. are not critical, but dwell on its typical aspects.

Some rivalry appears to have existed in the 6th cent. between the sees of Arles and Vienne, but was adjusted by pope Leo, whose adjustment was confirmed by Symmachus. Caesarius was in favour at Rome. A book he wrote against the semi-Pelagians, entitled de Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio, was sanctioned by pope Felix; and the canons passed at Orange were approved by Boniface II. The learned antiquary Thomassin believed him to have been the first Western bishop who received a pall from the pope. Guizot, in his Civilisation en France, cites part of one of his sermons as that of a representative man; while Neander has nothing but eulogy for his |unwearied, active, and pious zeal, ready for every sacrifice in the spirit of love,| and his moderation on the controversy concerning semi-Pelagianism. This is indeed the great glory of Caesarius. He more than anticipates the famous picture drawn by Chaucer of a teacher, earnest, sincere, and humble, but never sparing reproof where needed.

[J.G.C.]

Caesarius, friend of Chrysostom
Caesarius (7). Among the works attributed to Chrysostom is a treatise entitled ad Caesarium Monachum Epistola contra Apollinaristas.We only possess it in a Latin translation, though a few fragments of the Greek original are found in Anastasius and John Damascene and elsewhere. This tract, the literary history of which is very curious, is of disputed authenticity. If it is genuine, Caesarius had embraced a religious life from his childhood and become a monk; his piety had secured Chrysostom's affection, and at one time he had lived with him. Meeting with some Apollinarists, he purchased a book by Apollinarius which led him eagerly to embrace those views. The intelligence caused great grief to Chrysostom, then in exile at Cucusus, who sent him this letter to refute the Apollinarian heresy. It contains a celebrated passage illlustrating the doctrine of the two distinct natures in the one person of Jesus Christ by reference to the holy Eucharist, in which he speaks of the nature of bread as remaining in that which by the sanctifying grace of God is freed from the appellation of bread and thought worthy to be called the body of the Lord. This passage was adduced in controversy about the year 1548 by Peter Martyr, who deposited a transcript of it in archbp. Cranmer's library. After Cranmer's death this document was lost, and Martyr was accused of having forged it (Perron, de l'Euchar.381-3). His reputation was cleared by the rediscovery by Emeric Bigot, in a Florentine library, of doubtless the very MS. which Martyr, himself a Florentine, had used. Bigot in 1680 printed the epistle with Palladius's Life of Chrysostom. Previous to publication, through the influence of two censors of the Sorbonne, Louis XIV. ordered the leaves containing the letter to be cancelled. For an account of the mutilation see Mendham's Index of Pope Gregory XVI. xxxii.-xxxiv. But Bigot having made known his discovery to literary friends, Allix (preface to Anastasius in Hexaemeron, 1682) protested against the suppression, and the cancelled leaves were printed by le Moyne, Varia Sacra, 1685, by Wake, 1686, and by Basnage, 1687. The Jesuit Harduin published the epistle in 1689, accepting it as Chrysostom's, and vindicating the consistency of its doctrine with that of his church. It is accepted as genuine by Tillemont and Du Pin. The genuineness was first assailed by Le Quien (1712) in the preface to his edition of John of Damascus, and his arguments were adopted and enlarged by Montfaucon. Maffei found a Greek fragment also at Florence, professing to be from Chrysostom, the first sentence of which is identical with one in this letter, but proceeding to illustrate its doctrine by two similes not found in the Latin. The extract was printed by Basnage in Canisius's Lectiones Antiquae (Antwerp, 1725), pp.283-287. The second paragraph may be taken from a different work, but the MS. gives no indication of a change of author. Perhaps the Latin does not represent the whole of the letter. Against the genuineness it is urged that Caesarius is not mentioned elsewhere by Chrysostom, though the letter implies that they had been intimate from youth; that the style (if so little of the Greek allows us to judge) is rugged and abrupt, and the tone more scholastic than is common with Chrysostom; that the earliest Greek author who quotes it as Chrysostom's is of the 7th cent., though we should expect it to have been used in the Eutychian disputes, and quoted in the Acts of the 4th, 5th, and 6th councils. Le Quien also urged that language is used which is not heard of until employed by Cyril of Alexandria in controversy with Nestorius. Montfaucon, however, has produced precedents for much of this language from Athanasius, and has clearly proved that the letter was directed not against Eutychianism, but against Apollinarianism; and with much probability he identifies the work assailed with a work of Apollinarius quoted by Eulogius (ap. Photium, Cod.230, p.849). This being so, we are more inclined to accept the letter as written while the Apollinarian disputes were raging than, as Montfaucon conjectures, forged a century or two afterwards for use in the Eutychian controversy, since one of the arguments against its genuineness is that there is no evidence that it ever was so used. On the controversy as to the genuineness, see the authorities referred to by Fabricius, Bibl. Gr., ed. Harles, i.699 ; Chrys. iii.747-760, and xiii.496, ed. Migne; iii.736-746, ed. Montfaucon; Tillemont, vii.629, and xi.340-343; Routh, Opuscula, ii. (479-488).

[E.V.]

Cainites
Cainites. [[87]Carpocrates.]

Caius, ecclesiastical writer
Caius (2), an ecclesiastical writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent., according to late authority, a presbyter of the Roman church. Eusebius mentions but one work of his, to which he refers four times (H. E. ii.25, iii.28, 31, vi.20), and from which he gives some short extracts. This was a dialogue purporting to be a report of a disputation held at Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (a.d.201-219) between Caius and Proclus, a leader of the sect of Montanists. [[88]Proclus.]

This dialogue is mentioned by the following writers, who may, however, have only known it from the account given by Eusebius: -- Hieron. de Vir. Ill.59; Theod. Haer. Fab. ii.3; iii.2, where the present text, doubtless by a transcriber's error, reads Patroclus instead of Proclus (Niceph. Call. H. E. iv.12, 20; Photius, Bibl.48). Only the last of these attributes any other work to Caius. Theodoret says that he wrote against Cerinthus, but is probably referring to a part of the dialogue in question.

In the short fragments preserved, Proclus defends the prophesyings of his sect by appealing to the four daughters of Philip, who with their father were buried at Hierapolis; Caius, on the other hand, offers to shew his antagonist at the Vatican and on the Appian Way the tombs of the apostles |who founded this church.| That Caius should have conducted a disputation at Rome does not of itself prove that he, any more than Proclus, permanently resided there. Yet the expression cited conveys the impression that he did; and Eusebius was apparently of that opinion, for elsewhere (vi.20), having mentioned that Caius only counted St. Paul's epistles as thirteen, omitting that to the Hebrews, he adds that even in his own time |some of the Romans| did not ascribe that epistle to the apostle. It is just possible that we are still in possession of the list of genuine apostolic writings which Eusebius (l.c.) intimates that Caius gave, in order to rebuke the rashness of his opponents in framing new Scriptures. Muratori attributed to Caius the celebrated fragment on the canon published by him, which concludes with a rejection of Montanist documents.
[[89]Muratorian Fragment.] But it is difficult to believe that if this were the list referred to by Eusebius, he would not have quoted it more fully. Among the heretical writings rejected by Caius was a book of Revelations (Eus. ii.25) purporting to be written by a great apostle and ascribed by Caius to Cerinthus, in which the author professes to have been shewn by angels that after the resurrection Christ's kingdom should be earthly, that men should inhabit Jerusalem, should be the slaves of lusts and pleasures, and should spend a thousand years in marriage festivities. The strongest reason for thinking that the book intended is the canonical book of the Revelation is that Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii.25) asserts that some of his predecessors had maintained that the Apocalypse is the work of Cerinthus, and describes their views in language strongly resembling that of Caius.

There had been much speculation respecting Caius himself (s.v. D. C. B.4-vol. ed.); and Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, vol. ii. p.377), questions his existence. But Dr. Gwynn, of Dublin, pub. in Hermathena VI. some fragments of Capita adv. Caium, written by Hippolytus, which he had discovered in Cod. Mus. Brit. Orient.560. These passages shew that he had attacked the Apocalypse of St. John, and treated the book as inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures. Harnack (Herzog.^3) thinks it not improbable that he had treated the Apocalypse as a work of Cerinthus; and as he would be at one in this opinion with the Alogi of Asia Minor, a connexion between him and them may be supposed. Nothing more is known with certainty of him (cf. Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, ii.985 seq.).

[G.S. AND ED.]

Caius, pope
Caius (3). Pope from Dec.17 (16?) a.d.283 (9 or 10 days after the death of his predecessor Eutychianus), to Apr.22, a.d.296, i.e. for 12 years 4 months 1 week (Pontifical, Bucher, p.272), but only for 11 years according to Anastasius (c.24) and to most Latins, and for 15 years according to Eusebius, who speaks of him as a contemporary (H. E. vii.32; Chron.284). He is probably the same as Caius the deacon, imprisoned with pope Stephen, a.d.257 (Anastas. c.24). Just as he was raised to the chair, the stern old Roman Carus died mysteriously in a thunderstorm in the East, and his profligate son Carinus succeeded to the empire at Rome. These events would seem to make a persecution, such as is assigned to this period by various martyr Acts, not in itself improbable, and though the Acts in question are untrustworthy (see Tillemont, iv.565), we are hardly justified in taking Eusebius for a witness to the contrary, as far as concerns the West. The probability is confirmed by the delay of the funeral of Eutychianus till July 25, 284 (v. Rossi, ii.378). The persecution is not represented as general, but as aimed at a few obnoxious devotees, and Caius does not appear as leading, accompanying, or inciting them, but only as exercising a fatherly supervision. Probably the persecution continued for some time under Diocletian. The early Pontifical, as well as Anastasius, makes Caius of Dalmatian origin and cousin to this emperor. The Acts of St. Susanna confirm this, but are untrustworthy (Till. iv.760). Caius is said in the early Pontifical to have avoided persecution by hiding in the crypts. During his latter years the Church must have enjoyed peace. He is said by Anastasius to have established the 6 orders of usher, reader, exorcist, subdeacon, deacon, and presbyter, as preliminary stages necessary before attaining the episcopate, and also to have divided Rome into regions assigned to the deacons. He is said to have sent Protus and Januarius on a mission to Sardinia (Mart. Rom. Baron. Oct.25). He died in peace according to the 6th-cent. Pontifical, and is not called a martyr by any one earlier than Bede and Anastasius. He was succeeded by Marcellinus. A decretal is ascribed to him. From a confusion between the calends of March and of May in the Mart. Hieron., Rabanus assigns his death, and Notker his burial, to Feb.20 (Rossi, ii.104). His commemoration on July 1 in the Mart. Hieron. is unexplained (ib. p.105). He was the last of the 12 popes buried in the crypt of Sixtus, in the cemetery of Callistus (ib. p.105). He is therefore mentioned again, Aug.9, at which date a copy of the inscription set up by Sixtus III. was placed in the margin of the ancient martyrology (ib. pp.33-46).

[E.B.B.]

Calandio or Calendio, bishop of Antioch
Calandio or Calendio (Kalandion), succeeded Stephen II. as bp. of Antioch, a.d.481. He owed his promotion to the episcopate to the emperor Zeno and Acacius, bp. of Constantinople; but the exact circumstances of his appointment are uncertain. There is a large body of evidence (not, however, to be admitted without grave question) that Calandio's election was of the same uncanonical character as that of his predecessor in the see [[90]Stephen II..]; and that being at Constantinople on business connected with the church of Antioch at the time of the vacancy of the see, he was chosen bishop, and ordained by Acacius; but the letter of pope Simplicius to Acacius, dated July 15, a.d.482, conveying his sanction of Calandio's election (Labbe, Conc. iv.1035), suggests a possible confusion between the election of Calandio and of Stephen II.

Calandio commenced his episcopate by excommunicating his theological opponents. He refused communion with all who declined to anathematize Peter the Fuller, Timothy the Weasel, and the Encyclic of Basiliscus condemning the decisions of the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii.10; Niceph. H. E. xv.28). He is reported to have endeavoured to counteract the Monophysite bias given to the Trisagion by Peter the Fuller in the addition of the words ho staurotheis di' hemas, by prefixing the clause Christe Basileu (Theod. Lector. p.556 B.) Calandio translated the remains of Eustathius, the banished bp. of Antioch, with the permission of Zeno, from Philippi in Macedonia, where he had died, to his own city -- a tardy recognition of the falsehood of the charges against Eustathius, which had the happy result of reuniting to the church the remains of the party that still called itself by his name (Theod. Lector. p.577; Theophanes, p.114). Calandio fell into disfavour and was banished by the Emperor Zeno, at the instigation of Acacius, to the African Oasis, a.d.485, where, probably, he died. The charge against him was that of having erased from the diptychs the name of Zeno, as the author of the Henoticon; and of having favoured Illus and Leontius in their rebellion, a.d.484. But the real cause of his deposition was the theological animosity of Acacius, whom he had offended by writing a letter to Zeno accusing Peter Mongus of adultery, and of having anathematized the decrees of the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. ii.16; Liberatus Diaconus, Breviar. c. xviii.; Gelasius, Ep. xiii. ad Dardan. Episc.; Labbe, iv.1208-1209, xv. ad Episc. Orient. ib.1217). On his deposition, the victorious Peter the Fuller was recalled to occupy the see of Antioch.

[E.V.]

Calligonus, eunuch and chamberlain to Valentinian II Calligonus, eunuch and chamberlain to Valentinian II., insulted Ambrose, a.d.385 (Ambr. Ep. xx. (1), iii. p.859). He conveyed a message, or reported a saying, of the emperor's, and added, |While I am alive, dost thou contemn Valentinian? I will remove thy head from off thee.| Ambrose answered, |God grant thee to fulfil thy threat; for I shall suffer what bishops suffer, and thou wilt do what eunuchs do. And would that God would avert them from the church, that they might turn all their weapons on me.| Calligonus was afterwards put to death on a peculiarly infamous charge (Augustine, contra Julianum, vi.14, vol. x.845). Tillemont (x.175) supposes that these events were in the mind of Ambrose when he wrote the 6th chapter of his book on Joseph. This is very probable, but the further inference that that book was written two years later seems wholly erroneous. The event that occurred after two years was the usurpation of Maximus. It is possible that Ambrose encountered two eunuchs. Cf. also de Broglie, l'Eglise et l'Empire, vi.173.

[E.B.B.]

Callistus, pope
Callistus (1) (i. q. formosissimus; later spelt Calistus, but Calixtus first in 11th cent., Bunsen's Hippolytus, i.131, note), the successor of pope Zephyrinus in a.d.218, said to have been a Roman, and the son of Domitius.

Nothing was known of Callistus, except that the Martyrologium Romanum contained a tradition of his martyrdom, till the discovery of the Philosophumena in 1850. This work, which first appeared under the name of Origen, but is now ascribed to Hippolytus, almost certainly the contemporary bp. of Portus, gives an account of the life of Callistus which is scarcely credible respecting one of the bishops of Rome, who had before been honoured as a saint and martyr. Accordingly, much controversy has sprung up round the names of Callistus and Hippolytus. If Hippolytus is to be believed, Callistus was an unprincipled adventurer; if Callistus can be defended, grave doubt is thrown upon the veracity of Hippolytus. Bunsen and Wordsworth adopt the former view; Döllinger the latter, in an ingenious treatise translated by Dr. Plummer (T. &; T. Clark, 1876). The story as told by Hippolytus is lifelike and natural, and, however much we may allow for personal rancour, we cannot but believe it to be substantially true.

He tells us that Callistus was originally a slave in the household of a rich Christian called Carpophorus. His master intrusted to his charge a bank in the Piscina Publica, where Callistus induced his fellow-Christians to deposit their savings upon the security of the name of Carpophorus. The bank broke, and Callistus fled, but Carpophorus tracked him to Portus, and found him on board an outward-bound ship. The slave threw himself overboard in despair, but was picked up, and delivered to his master, who brought him back and put him to the pistrinum, or mill worked by the lowest slaves, for a punishment. After a time, however, he was set at liberty, and again attempted suicide, and for this purpose raised a riot in a synagogue of the Jews. By them he was brought before Fuscianus, the praefectus urbi, who, in spite of the fact that Carpophorus claimed him as his slave, condemned him, as a disturber of public worship allowed by the Roman laws, to be sent to the mines of Sardinia (Philosophumena, ed. Miller, pp.286, 287).

His supposed desire for death certainly seems an inadequate motive for raising the riot in the Jewish synagogue. Döllinger supposes that, while claiming his debts at the hands of members of the Jewish synagogue, his zeal for religion impelled him to bear witness for Christ, and that thus his exile to Sardinia was a species of martyrdom for Christianity (Döllinger, Hippolytus u. Kallistus, p.119). The date of his exile is proximately fixed, since Fuscianus served the office of praefectus urbi between a.d.188 and a.d.193 (Bunsen's Hippolytus, i.138). Some time after, proceeds Hippolytus, Marcia, the Christian mistress of Commodus, persuaded the emperor to grant an amnesty to Christians undergoing punishment in Sardinia; and Callistus, at his own entreaty, was released, although his name was not on the list (supplied by the then bp. Victor) of those intended to benefit by Marcia's clemency. Callistus reappeared in Rome, much to the annoyance of Victor, for the outrage on the synagogue was recent and notorious. He therefore sent him to Antium, making him a small monthly allowance (Philosophumena, p.288). Milman dates this c. a.d.190, in the very year of Victor's accession (Lat. Christ. i.55, note).

That Carpophorus's runaway slave should be of such importance that the pope should buy him off with an allowance, and insist upon his residing at a distance, shews that Callistus was already thought to be no ordinary man. He must have resided at Antium for a long time; for Zephyrinus, who did not succeed Victor till a.d.202, recalled him. The new bishop |gave him the control of the clergy, and set him over the cemetery| (Phil. p.288). This suggests that Callistus had been ordained at Antium; and the words |set him over the cemetery| (eis to koimeterion katestesen have a special interest; for one of the largest catacombs in Rome is known as the Coemeterium Sti. Calixti. That this should have been intrusted to the same man to whom also was given the control of the clergy proves what a high value was set upon this first public burial-place of the Christians in Rome. Thirteen out of the next eighteen popes are said to have been buried here; and the names of seven of the thirteen (Callistus himself being one of the exceptions) have been identified from old inscriptions found in one crypt of this cemetery.

Now (a.d.202) for the first time Callistus became a power in the Roman church. To Hippolytus, who held a double position in that church [[92]HIPPOLYTUS], he became especially obnoxious. Being set over the Roman clergy, he was over Hippolytus, who was the presbyter of one of the Roman cardines or churches; but as a presbyter himself, he was inferior ecclesiastically to one who was also the bp. of Portus. Hippolytus claims to have detected Callistus's double-dealing from the first; but tells us that Callistus, aspiring to be bp. of Rome himself, would break openly with neither party. The question which now divided the church was that of the Monarchia, or how to reconcile the sovereignty of the Father with the Godhead of the Son. Callistus, who had obtained a complete ascendancy over the mind of Zephyrinus, according to Hippolytus an ignorant and venal man, took care to use language now agreeing with the Sabellians, now with Hippolytus. But he personally sided with Sabellius, called Hippolytus a Ditheist, and persuaded Sabellius, who might otherwise have gone right, to coalesce with the Monarchians. His motive, says Hippolytus, was that there might be two parties in the church which he could play off against each other, continuing on friendly terms with both (Phil. p.289).

We find from Tertullian that Zephyrinus began, no doubt under Callistus's influence, the relaxation of discipline which he himself afterwards carried further when he became bishop. Under Zephyrinus the practice first obtained of allowing adulterers to be readmitted after public penance (de Pudicitiâ, i.21; Döllinger, pp.126-130). Zephyrinus died in a.d.218, and Callistus was elected bishop instead; and Hippolytus does not scruple to avow that by this act the Roman church had formally committed itself to heresy. He regards his own as the orthodox church, in opposition to what he henceforth considers as only being the Callistian sect (Phil. pp.289, 292). Yet the first act apparently of Callistus as bishop was towards conciliating his rival. He threw off, perhaps actually excommunicated (apeose), Sabellius. But he only did this, says Hippolytus, to proclaim a heresy quite as deadly as the other. If he is to be believed, he is right in thus characterizing it. The Father and the Son, Callistianism said, were one; together they made the Spirit, which Spirit took flesh in the womb of the Virgin. Callistus, says Hippolytus indignantly, is as Patripassian as Sabellius, for he makes the Father suffer with the Son, if not as the Son (ib. pp.289-330).

Hippolytus brings against him several other grave accusations of further relaxing the bonds of church discipline (ib. pp.290, 291) -- e.g.? (1) He relaxed the terms of readmission into the church: accounting no sin so deadly as to be incapable of readmission, and not exacting penance as a necessary preliminary.? (2) He relaxed the terms of admission into orders, ordaining even those who had been twice or thrice married; and permitting men already ordained to marry freely.? (3) He also relaxed the marriage laws of the church, thereby bringing them into conflict with those of the state; and Hippolytus says that a general immorality was the consequence. Döllinger, however, pertinently observes that Hippolytus does not even hint a charge of personal immorality against Callistus (Döllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, p.195).? (4) He allowed second baptisms, which perhaps means that a repetition of baptism was substituted for the penance which had been necessary at the readmission of grievous sinners into the church. This is the only accusation which Döllinger meets with a distinct contradiction, on the ground that no such practice was known in the later Roman church (p.189). Yet it surely is not as inconceivable as it seemed to him that later bishops of Rome might have reversed the acts of their predecessor.

Callistus is said to have died in a.d.223 (Eus. H. E. vi.20). Tradition tells us that he was scourged in a popular rising, thrown out of a window of his house in Trastevere, and flung into a well. This would account for no epitaph being found to Callistus in the papal crypt of his own cemetery in the catacombs. E. Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuch. (1893), xi.3; P. Battifol, Le Décret de Callist. in Etudes d'Hist. et de Théol. (Paris, 1902), pp.69 seq.

[G.H.M.]

Caprasius, presbyter at Lérins
Caprasius (2), St., presbyter at Lérins (l'Isle de St. Honorat). Having a great desire to become a hermit, he distributed his goods to the poor and with St. Honoratus ultimately fixed on the isle of Lérins, described as a frightful desert where nothing was to be seen but serpents and other venomous creatures. There Honoratus built a monastery, into which he received many monks from the neighbouring countries. It was under the discipline of Caprasius and Honoratus, who are said to have made it the home of saints. Hilarius describes their new monastery as being distinguished for chastity, faith, wisdom, justice, truth. They also built in the island a church, of which Honoratus became minister. Caprasius died c.430, and is commemorated on June 1. (Acta Sanctorum, Jun.1, p.77; Hilar. Arelat. de Vita S. Honorati, cap. ii. Patr. Lat. l. p.1255; Eutherius Lugd. de Laud. Eremi, 42, Patr. Lat.1. p.711; Sidonius Apoll. Carm. § 384, Patr. Lat. lviii. p.721; Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs Sacrés et Ecclés. t. viii. p.439.)

[C.H.]

Capreolus, bp. of Carthage
Capreolus, bp. of Carthage, known in connexion with the council of Ephesus, a.d.431. N. Africa at that time being ravaged by the Vandals under Genseric, it was impossible to convene the bishops to appoint representatives from the church of Carthage at the council. The bishop, however, in his zeal for the catholic doctrine, dispatched an elaborate letter in its defence, which is extant, both in Greek and Latin. There is also extant an other letter by Capreolus on this controversy, written in answer to inquiries addressed to him from Spain, by Vitalis and Constantius. Both letters are in Migne, vol. liii. p.843. Also a fragment of the letter which he addressed to Theodosius, who convoked the council, is quoted by Ferrandus in his letter to Pelagius and Anatolius, c.6, Patr. Migne, lxvii.925. The Sermo de Tempore Barbarico, on the Vandal invasion of Africa, usually attributed to St. Augustine, and other sermons in which Augustine describes the Vandal ravages, are considered by Tillemont (xvi.502) to have been written by Capreolus (Hardouin, i.1419-1422; Fleury, xxv.41; Till. xii.559, xiii.901, xiv.376, 399, xvi.495, 502, 789), but this is doubtful.

[D.B.]

Tillemont supposes Capreolus to have succeeded to the see of Carthage shortly before the death of Augustine (430), as the letter convoking the council of Ephesus seems to have been addressed to him and to Augustine (xii.559). Another object of his letter to Ephesus was to implore the council not to re-open the question of the Pelagian heresy. When his letter was read, Cyril and all the bishops exclaimed, |That is what we all say; that is what we all wish,| and they ordered it to be inserted in the Acts of the council (Vinc. Lerin. c.31; Labbe, Conc. iii.529). He is probably the |priest| in Africa in the time of Aspar, mentioned in the Book of Promises, ascribed to Prosper (i.4, c.6).

It is instructive to note the importance that he attaches to the descent of the God-man into Hades. Chaps.5-12 are taken up with answering the new error. He quotes Ps. xvi.10; John x.18; I. Cor. ii.7, 8; II. Cor. v.18, 19; Heb. i.2, 3; Col. ii.15; Heb. x.28-30; John xx.17. He does not quote John xvi.32, but says (c.13) that it would be endless to adduce all scripture testimonies. His answer to the argument from Ps. xxii. i is drawn from the latter half of the verse (as it is in the LXX and Vulgate, which are not improbably right), |Far from my health are the words of my failings,| and based on the mystery of the union of the two natures, |that human condition should know itself| (c.5).

The death of Capreolus is generally dated c. a.d.435. His burial was commemorated in the calendar of Carthage between July 21 and 30; the note of the day is lost.

[E.B.B.]

Caracalla, nickname of M. Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassianus Caracalla, the nickname of M. Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassianus, son of Lucius Septimius Severus, born April 4, 188, declared Caesar a.d.196, three years after his father's accession; succeeded to the empire in conjunction with his brother Geta, Feb.211, sole emperor after slaying his brother in his mother's arms a.d.212, in Gaul 213, in Germany and on the Danube 214, at Antioch and Alexandria 215, marched against Parthia 216, killed on the way from Edessa to Carrhae, April 8, 217. His mother, according to contemporary authorities, was Julia, a Syrian woman, whom Severus had married because of certain prophecies. Spartianus, in the time of Constantine, assures us that Julia was his stepmother, and that his mother was Severus's first wife Marcia. This would make his story somewhat less horrible, but compels the historian at the cost of some inconsistency to refer his birth to 174, or earlier.

The principal authorities are Tertullian, addressing Scapula, governor of Africa, in 211; the sober, contemporary, and apparently impartial, narrative of Herodian (bks. vii. viii.); the abridgment, by the very late compiler Xiphilinus, of the 77th book of the contemporary historian Dion Cassius, with which the compiler seems to have incorporated fragments of other works of a like early date; the narrative written for Constantine by Lampridius Spartianus in the Historia Augusta; laws, coins, inscriptions (see Clinton), and especially a record in the Digest, bk i, tit.5, l.17, from the 22nd book of Ulpian.

Dion charges him with inheriting all the worst features of the races from which he sprang; on his father's side, the braggart levity of the Gaul and the truculence of the African; on his mother's, the tricksiness of the Syrian. Tertullian (ad Scap. c.4) calls him Antoninus, and informs us that |his father Severus had a regard for Christians; . . . and Antoninus . . . was brought up on Christian milk. And, moreover, Severus knew most illustrious men and most illustrious women to be of this sect, and not only did not hurt, but honoured [exornavit or, more probably, exoneravit, exonerated] them by the witness he bore them, and withstood the raging populace.| It has been inferred that the young prince was not only brought up amid Christian influences, but had a Christian wet-nurse.

We can easily conceive how injurious it must have been for the child to find the Christians in the palace screened, while yet he was taken to see shows of wild beasts where Christians were thrown to them to devour. Spartianus tells us that he was a most charming child, quick at learning, engaging with his prattle, and of a very tender heart. |If he saw condemned criminals thrown to the beasts, he cried, or looked away, which more than won the hearts of the people. At seven years of age, when he heard that a boy that was his playmate had been severely beaten for Jewish superstition, it was a long while before he would look at his own father or the boy's father again, or at the people who had him flogged. By his own intercession he restored their ancient rights to the people of Antioch and Byzantium, who had helped Niger against his father. It was for his cruelty that he took an aversion to Plautianus. But all this was only while he was a boy [sed haec puer].| The |Jewish superstition| has been interpreted, with great probability, to mean Christianity. The Plautianus mentioned was, teste Herodian, a vile tyrant, all-powerful with Severus, whose daughter Caracalla was compelled to marry, much against his will, in the hope of reforming him from certain low tastes, such as won him the favour of the city populace.

Spartianus tells us that when Caracalla emerged from boyhood, before his accession, he was so changed, so stern, that no one would have known him; whereas his brother Geta, who had been an unpleasing child, was very much improved as he grew up. His narrative, and the abridgment of Dion, afford no clue to the enmity that sprang up between the brothers, and deeper principles seem to have been involved than mere fraternal jealousy. Caracalla's early life was such as to teach him heart-hardening dissimulation; Tertullian, while the brothers yet ruled jointly, urges at once the uncertainty of human life, and the probability that Caracalla would favour the Christians; and it is the fact that his victory coincided with a general and prolonged cessation of a long and cruel persecution.

We cannot tell whether he had any higher motives than a mean malice and uneasy envy in his murder of his brother, and whether the mother, for whose sake he claimed to have done it and whom he would not allow to utter or even listen to a complaint, ever forgave him. The incredible charge of incest was afterwards brought against them. But there is little doubt as to the results of the deed. He did not become a Christian, and the ancient gods of the state were the last to whom he had recourse. He patronised Philostratus, who wrote for his mother and for him the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. He thus fostered one of the chief counterfeits of Christianity. He gathered round. him all who professed to read the future, and he worshipped the spirits of the dead. But they could not rid his ears of his brother's dying cry, meter, meter, tekousa, tekousa, boethei, sphazomai. He continued to court the city populace, and enriched Rome with magnificent baths, which even in ruins are the most superb monuments of refined luxury. But his fits of savagery must have made it hard for him to continue a favourite of the populace. Henceforth he relied mainly on his army, and sought ease of mind in excitement. Both necessities involved expense. Whatever impulse he gave to the corruption of the capital, he himself contentedly shared the roughest privileges of the soldiers. But that alone could not secure their affection. In the first day of his crime he had lavished the wealth his father had been eighteen years in acquiring. New sources of revenue were needed.

It is the method that Caracalla adopted to raise a revenue that gives him his main claim to a place in the catalogue of men whose lives affected the Christian church. His act, as Gibbon has shewn, marked an era in the decline of the empire. But more than that, it affected very greatly the position of Christians in all future persecutions. It is this indeed mainly that enables us to pronounce with certainty that the act was his, and belonged to no earlier date. |All who are in the Roman world,| says Ulpian, |have been made citizens of Rome by an institution of the emperor Antoninus.| |A most grateful and humane deed!| exclaims Augustine (de Civ. Dei, v.17, vol. vii.161), and immediately subjoins the proviso that made the boon so equivocal. At a stroke the Roman world was pauperized. Every citizen resident in the capital was entitled to receive every month, at a cheap rate -- the indigent quite gratuitously -- a certain amount of corn or bread. This was one of the chief drains upon the revenue, and one of the main causes of extortion in the provinces. But Augustus laid a tax on citizens from which aliens were exempt, a tax which made the franchise in many cases a burden to be declined rather than a boon to be coveted, a duty of five per cent. on all bequests. Nerva and Trajan, however, exempted the passage of moderate inheritances from parent to child, or vice versâ (Plin. Paneg.37, 38). Caracalla, by raising the provincials to the franchise, did not free them from the tribute they owed before, but imposed this additional burden, which he doubled in amount, and which involved the odious intrusion of the tax-gatherer in seasons of domestic bereavement. The act seems to synchronize with a congiarium or largess to the populace in a.d.214. Thenceforward Caracalla's laws, wherever promulgated, seemed to be dated at Rome. Oppressive as were the effects of the act, it seems yet to have been welcomed. It was but fair, thought Augustine, that rustics who had lands should give food to citizens who had none, so long as it was granted as a boon and not extorted as a right.

But besides its effects as a financial measure, Caracalla's act broke down the barriers of society; annulled, as far as any imperial institution could, the proud old sovereign commonwealth, the queen of nations, whose servants and ministers the emperors had ever professed to be; opened the command of armies to unlettered barbarians; removed the bars to the influx of Greek and Syrian and Egyptian corruption into Rome; reduced the subjects to a level, above which only the emperor, the minion of the army, towered supreme.

In earlier times St. Paul's Roman citizenship had stood him in good stead; and in the story of the martyrs in Gaul under M. Aurelius the Roman citizens had been reserved till the emperor's will was known. A boon now so widely diffused could scarcely retain the same value. But we hear no more of Christians being crucified, unless they were slaves, or first reduced to slavery. Unutterably horrible as the tortures devised against them were, they were no longer commonly thrown to the beasts as a show. They suffered by the sword at last, and all their tortures were such as might befall any citizen of Rome who transgressed the mandate of the emperor. [D. C. A. Persecution; Torture.] Thus martyrdom, instead of the obstinacy of an abject alien superstition, became the bold and cheerful resistance of free citizens to the arbitrary will of one who, when he began to torture, became a barbarous tyrant.

[E.B.B.]

Caritas, martyr
Caritas. Charity with her virgin sisters, Faith and Hope, and their mother Wisdom, seem to have been the names of real martyrs. The names were very natural ones for Christians to give to their children. On the Aurelian Way, in the church of St. Pancras, lay Sophia with her three daughters: Sapientia, with her daughters Fides, Spes, and Charitas, as William of Malmesbury calls them; but the Latin names nowhere else occur in this order, the Greek names, when given in full, always do. Sophia, Pistis, Elpis, Agape, are said to have been a mother and daughters who suffered in September, and whose relics were transferred to the church of St. Silvester. On the other hand, Sapienta, Spes, Fides, Caritas, are said by Ado to have suffered Aug.1, and were buried on the Appian Way, in the crypt of St. Caecilia. In. that crypt has been found the inscription, PISTE SPEI SORORI DULCISSIMAE FECIT. In the same place, if we rightly understand de Rossi, was found AGAPE QVE VXIT ANNIS VGINTI ET SEX IN PACE -- Agape, who lived twenty-six years in peace. There is no statement of relationship in the notices of the tombs on the Appian Way. It appears probable that Ado has confounded the widely celebrated martyrs who are said to have suffered in September under Adrian, with the occupants of some Christian tombs in a crypt where there were many celebrations early in August. The Menology gives the ages of Faith, Hope, and Love as 12, 10, and 9. (De Rossi, Rom. Sott. i.180-183, ii.171 ff., pl. lv.10; Bede, Mart. July 1, Bede, Mart. Auct. June 23; Usuard, Aug.1; Menol. Basil. Sept.16.)

[E.B.B.]

Carpocrates, philosopher
Carpocrates (Karpokrates, Irenaeus; Karpokr?s, Epiphanius and Philaster, both probably deriving this form from the shorter treatise against heresies by Hippolytus), a Platonic philosopher who taught at Alexandria early in the 2nd cent., and who, incorporating Christian elements into his system, became the founder of a heretical sect mentioned in one of our earliest catalogues of heresies, the list of Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius (H. E. iv.22). These heretics are the first of whom Irenaeus expressly mentions that they called themselves Gnostics; Hippolytus first speaks of the name as assumed by the Naassenes or Ophites (Ref. v.1). Of all the systems called Gnostic, that of Carpocrates is the one in which the Hellenic element is the most strongly marked, and which contains the least of what is necessarily Jewish or Oriental. He is described as teaching with prominence the doctrine of a single first principle: the name monadike gnosis, given by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii.2) to the doctrine of the school which he founded, is made by Neander to furnish the key to the whole Carpocratian system; but possibly is only intended to contrast with the doctrine of the Valentinian teachers, who thought it necessary to provide the first Being with a consort, in order that emanations from Him might be conceivable. Carpocrates taught that from the one unknown unspeakable God different angels and powers had emanated, and that of these the lowest in the series, far below the unbegotten Father, had been the makers of the world. The privilege of the higher souls was to escape the rule of those who had made the world; even by magical arts to exercise dominion over them, and ultimately, on leaving the world, to pass completely free from them to God Who is above them. Jesus he held to be a mere man naturally born of human parents, having no prerogatives beyond the reach of others to attain. His superiority to ordinary men consisted in this, that His soul, being steadfast and pure, remembered those things which it had seen in the revolution (te periphora) in which it had been carried round with the unbegotten God, and therefore power [or a |power|] had been sent from God enabling Him to escape the makers of the world. Though brought up in Jewish customs, He had despised them, and therefore had received powers enabling Him to destroy the passions which are given to men as a punishment. But in this there was nothing special: others might be the equals or the superiors not only of Peter or Paul, but of our Lord Himself. Their souls, too, might remember the truths they had witnessed; if they despised the rulers of the world as much as Jesus did, they would be given the same privileges as He, and higher if they despised them more. Thus the Carpocratians gave honour, but not an exclusive honour, to Christ. They had pictures of Him, derived, it was said, from a likeness taken by Pilate's order; and images, which they crowned and treated with other marks of respect; but this they did also in the cases of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers.

In the opening statement concerning the making of the world, the doctrine ascribed to Carpocrates is almost identical with that ascribed to Saturninus; but in the next paragraph the language is distinctly taken from the myth in Plato's Phaedrus, in which human knowledge is made to be but a recollection of what the soul had seen when carried round with the gods in their revolution, and permitted to see the eternal forms of things.

The doctrine of the duty of despising the rulers of the world received among the Carpocratians an interpretation which enabled them to practise immorality without scruple. Things in themselves were indifferent; nothing was in its own nature good or evil, and was only made so by human opinion. The true Gnostic might practise everything -- nay, it was his duty to have experience of all. A doctrine concerning the transmigration of souls which was taught by other Gnostic sects, and which harmonized well with Platonic teaching, was adopted by the Carpocratians in the form that a soul which had had its complete experience passed at once out of the dominion of the rulers of the world, and was received up to society with the God above them: those which had not were sent back to finish in other bodies that which was lacking to them; but all ultimately would be saved. But as was also taught by the Basilidians of Irenaeus and by the Ophites, salvation belonged to the soul alone; there would be no resurrection of the body. In conformity with this theory was interpreted the text from the Sermon on the Mount, |Agree with thine adversary quickly.| The |adversary| (whom, Epiphanius tells us, they named Abolus, a corruption, doubtless, from the Diabolus of Irenaeus) was one of the world-making angels, whose office it was to conduct the soul to the principal of these angels, |the judge.| If he found that there were acts left undone, he delivered it to another angel, |the officer,| to shut it up |in prison| -- i.e. in a body -- until it had paid the last farthing. The doctrine that we ought to imitate the freedom with which our Lord despised the rulers of the world raises the question, Did Carpocrates intend to impute immorality to Him? On this point Carpocrates was misunderstood either by Hippolytus or by his own disciples. According to Hippolytus, Carpocrates taught that Jesus surpassed other men in justice and integrity (sophrosune kai arete kai bio dikaiosunes, Epiphanius), and no doubt our Lord's example might have been cited only in reference to freedom from Jewish ceremonial obligations; yet the version of Irenaeus seems more trustworthy, which does not suggest that the superiority of Jesus consisted in anything but the clearer apprehension of eternal truths which His intellect retained. Carpocrates claimed to be in possession of the true teaching of Christ spoken secretly by Him to His apostles, and communicated by them in tradition to the worthy and faithful; and the apostolic doctrine that men are to be saved by faith and love was used by him to justify an antinomian view of the complete indifference of works. Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates by a Cephallenian woman, maintained a licentious theory of communism in all things, women included. The Carpocratians and the Cainites have often been coupled together as the two most immoral of the Gnostic sects, and in practical effects their doctrines may not have been very different; but the Carpocratian theory of the indifference of human actions fell short of the inversion of good and evil which is ascribed to the Cainites. Whereas the latter represented the God of the Jews and Maker of the world as an evil Being who ought to be resisted, the former only spoke of the makers of the world as inferior beings whose restrictions it is true enlightenment to despise; and the arguments of Epiphanes, derived from the equality that reigns in nature, assume that the creation is so far conformed to the will of God that from the laws which pervade it we may infer what is pleasing to the supreme power. Whether immorality were directly taught by Carpocrates himself or not, his followers became proverbial for deliberate licentiousness of life. The Christians thought it likely that the stories current among the heathen of scenes of shameless debauchery in the Christian lovefeasts had a real foundation in what took place among the Carpocratians. Philaster, who, apparently through oversight, enumerates the Carpocratians twice, the second time (57) giving them the alternative names of Floriani and Milites, directly asserts this. His predecessors had suggested it as probable (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii.2; cf. Justin Martyr, Apol.26). Irenaeus counts Carpocratian doctrines and practices as means employed by Satan to discredit the Christian name among the heathen. (See also Eus. H. E. iv.7.)

A more trifling heathen belief about the Christians generally seems to have been true of the Carpocratians, viz. that they knew each other, by secret bodily marks (notaculo corporis, Minucius Felix, cc.9, 31); for the Carpocratians marked their disciples by cauterizing them in the back of the lobe of the right ear. It appears from Heracleon (Clem. Alex. p.995, Eclog. ex Script. Proph. xxv.) that this was a baptismal ceremony, intended to represent the |baptism with fire,| predicted of our Lord by the Baptist. This confirms the evidence as to the use of at least St. Matthew's Gospel by the Carpocratians furnished by Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. p.138) and by the use made of the Sermon on the Mount. Celsus probably refers to this rite (Origen, v.64) when he says that Christians gave to certain others of them the opprobrious name akoes kausteria. Origen, however, supposes that I. Tim. iv.2 is here referred to.

Mention has already been made of the cultivation of magic by the Carpocratians, and their pretension to equal the miraculous powers of our Lord. Hippolytus, in the fourth book of the Refutation, gives us several specimens of wonders exhibited by magicians, not very unlike feats performed by professional conjurors to-day. It was easy for Irenaeus to shew (ii.32) how very unlike these transient wonders were to be permanent miracles of healing effected by our Lord, and which, as he claimed, continued in the church.

According to Neander, the Carpocratian system sees in the world's history one struggle between the principles of unity and of multiplicity. From one eternal Monad all existence has flowed, and to this it strives to return. But the finite spirits who rule over several portions of the world counteract this universal striving after unity. From them the different popular religions, and in particular the Jewish, have proceeded. Perfection is attained by those souls who, led on by reminiscences of their former condition, soar above all limitation and diversity to the contemplation of the higher unity. They despise the restrictions imposed by the mundane spirits; they regard externals as of no importance, and faith and love as the only essentials; meaning by faith, mystical brooding of the mind absorbed in the original unity. In this way they escape the dominion of the finite mundane spirits; their souls are freed from imprisonment in matter, and they obtain a state of perfect repose (corresponding to the Buddhist Nirwana) when they have completely ascended above the world of appearance.

With respect to the Carpocratians, the primary authorities are Irenaeus (i.25, ii.31-34), Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii.2); Tertullian (de Anima, 23, 35), who appears to have drawn his information from Irenaeus; Philaster (35) and Pseudo-Tertullian (9), who represent the earlier treatise of Hippolytus; Epiphanius (27), who weaves together the accounts of Hippolytus and of Irenaeus; and Hippolytus, who in his later treatise (vii.20) merely copies Irenaeus, with some omissions, thereby suggesting that he was not acquainted with the work of Irenaeus when he wrote the earlier treatise. He certainly had at that time other sources of information, for he mentions three or four points not found in Irenaeus -- e.g. he emphasizes the Carpocratian doctrine of the unity of the first principle, tells of emanations from that principle of angels and powers, gives a different version of the excellence of Jesus, and says that Carpocrates denied the resurrection of the body. It is not impossible that Justin's work on heresies may have furnished some materials for Irenaeus. In any case Irenaeus probably added much of his own, for the pains he has taken with the confutation make it probable that in his time the sect was still active at Rome.

We cannot assign an exact date to Carpocrates; but there are affinities between his system and those of Saturninus and Basilides, which suggest one a little later than Basilides, from whom he may have derived his knowledge of Christianity. Eusebius is probably right in placing him in the reign of Hadrian (d. a.d.138). It suffices merely to mention the invention of the writer known as Praedestinatus (i.7) that the Carpocratians were condemned in Cyprus by the apostle Barnabas. Matter, in his history of Gnosticism, gives an account of certain supposed Carpocratian inscriptions, since found to be spurious (Gieseler's Ecc. Hist. c. ii. § 45, note 16).

[G.S.]

Cassianus, Julius, a heretical teacher
Cassianus (2) Julius, a heretical teacher who lived towards the end of the 2nd cent., chiefly known to us by references to his writings made on two occasions by Clemens Alexandrinus. In the first passage (Strom. i.21, copied by Eusebius, Praep. Ev. x.12) Clement engages in a chronological inquiry to shew the greatly superior antiquity of Moses to the founders of Grecian philosophy, and he acknowledges himself indebted to the previous investigations made by Tatian in his work addressed to the Greeks, and by Cassian (spelt Casianus in the MS. of Clement, but not in those of Eusebius) in the first book of his Exegetica. Vallarsi (ii.865) alters without comment the Cassianus of previous editors into Casianus, in Jerome's Catalogue 33, a place where Jerome is not using Clement directly, but is copying the notice in Eusebius (H. E. vi.13). Jerome adds that he had not himself met the chronological work in question. In the second passage (Strom. iii.13, seq.) Cassian is also named in connexion with Tatian. Clement is, in this section, refuting the doctrines of those Gnostics who, in their view of the essential evil of matter, condemned matrimony and the procreation of children; and after considering some arguments urged by Tatian, says that similar ones had been used by Julius Cassianus whom he describes as the originator of Docetism (ho tes dokeseos exarchon), a statement which must be received with some modification. [[94]Docetae.] He quotes some passages from a treatise by Cassian on Continence (peri enkrateias, e peri eunouchias), in which he wholly condemned sexual intercourse, and referred its origin to instigations of our first parents by the serpent, alleging in proof II. Cor. xi.3. Cassian quoted Is. lvi.3, Matt. xix.12, and probably several other passages which are discussed by Clement without express mention that they had been used by Cassian. Cassian also uses certain alleged sayings of our Lord, cited likewise in the so-called second epistle of the Roman Clement to the Corinthians, cap. xii., as well as in the Excerpta Theodoti, lxvii. p.985. Lightfoot notices (Clement, l.c.) that Cassian, by the omission of a clause, makes the Encratite aspect of the passage much stronger than it appears in the citation of the Pseudo-Clement. Clemens Alexandrinus makes no complaint of unfairness in the quotation; but while he remarks that the sayings in question are not found in our four Gospels, but only in the Gospel according to the Egyptians, he gives a different explanation far less natural than that of Cassian.

Another specimen of Cassian's arguments in this treatise is preserved in Jerome's Commentary on Gal. vi.8. Jerome there answers an Encratite argument founded on this text, viz. that he who is united to a woman soweth to the flesh, and therefore shall of the flesh reap corruption. This argument is introduced with words which, according to the common reading, run, |Tatianus qui putativam Christi carnem introducens, omnem conjunctionem masculi ad foeminam immundam arbitratur, tali adversum nos sub occasione praesentis testimonii usus est argumento.| There is little doubt that we are to read instead of Tatianus, Cassianus. The Benedictine editor who retains the old reading notes that Cassianus is the reading of two of the oldest MSS., while Vallarsi says that Cassianus was the reading of every MS. he had seen.

The Docetism of Cassian was closely connected with his Encratism, for it was an obvious answer of the orthodox to his doctrine on Continence, that if the birth of children were essentially evil, then our Lord's own birth was evil, and His mother an object of blame. This was met by a denial of the reality of our Lord's body. Cassian also taught that man had not been originally created with a body like ours, but that these fleshly bodies were the |coats of skin| in which the Lord clothed our first parents after the Fall. This notion, probably derived from Valentinus (Iren. I. v. p.27), had considerable currency. References for it will be found in Huet's Origeniana, ii. Qu.12, viii., and Beausobre, Manichéisme, ii.135).

Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i.8) enumerates among the followers of Valentinus one Cossian, by whom, no doubt, Julius Cassianus is intended; for many greater inaccuracies in the names are in the present text of Theodoret, and Theodoret would have found authority in Clement for classing Cassian with Valentinus.

The coincidences between Tatian and Cassianus seem too close to be accidental, but we have not data to determine their relative priority. If Cassian were really the founder of the sect called Docetae, he must have been some time antecedent to Serapion (Eus. H. E. vi.12). His country may have been Egypt (cf. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt. Chr. Lit. pp.201-204). [[95]Docetae; Encratites.]

[G.S.]

Cassianus, bishop of Autun
Cassianus (6), bp. of Autun. The date we assign him will vary according as we attach more weight to the ancient Life of him, which professes to be based on a contemporary record (Acta SS. Aug.5, vol. ii. p.64), as Ruinart prefers to do, or to a casual statement by Gregory of Tours, who was shewn his tomb (Glor. Conf.74, 75), as do Tillemont and the Bollandists. The Life tells us that he was born of noble parents in Alexandria, and brought up by a bp. Zonis; that he made his house a Christian hospital in the time of Julian, liberated his slaves, and built a church to St. Lawrence at Orta in Egypt, at which place he was made bishop against his will in the time of Jovian, a.d.363.

The tomb of Cassian was famous. A stain in the form of a cross appeared on it, which is said to have prompted Germanus to hold a conversation with the saint in his tomb. He asked him how he did, and the saint answered that he was at rest. This is told in his Life, and may explain the great eagerness to obtain dust scraped from the stones of his tomb, which was almost bored through in consequence, as testified by Gregory.

[E.B.B.]

Cassianus (11) Johannes, founder of Western Monachism Cassianus (11) Johannes has been called the founder of Western monachism and of the semi-Pelagian school. More exactly, he was the first to transplant the rules of the Eastern monks into Europe, and the most eminent of the writers who steered a course between Pelagianism and the tenets of St. Augustine. Like St. Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, and others, he is usually designated by his agnomen. His birth is dated between a.d.350 and 360; his birthplace is not known. Gennadius calls him |Scytha| (Fabric. Biblioth. Eccles. s.v.); but this may be merely a corruption from Scetis or Scyathis, where Cassian resided for some time among the monks of Nitria. His parents, of whose piety he speaks gratefully (Coll. xxiv.1), sent him to be educated in a monastery at Bethlehem; and there he would have frequent intercourse with pilgrims from the West. This cannot have been, as some have thought, the monastery of St. Jerome, for that was not then in existence, nor does Cassian ever refer to Jerome as his teacher. Here Cassian became intimate with Germanus, the future companion of his travels. The fame of the Egyptian monks and hermits reached Cassian and his friend in their cells. About a.d.390 they started, with leave of absence for seven years, to study by personal observation the more austere rules of the |renuntiantes,| as they were called, in the Thebaid. At the end of seven years they revisited Bethlehem; and thence returned very soon to the Egyptian deserts (Coll. xvii.31). Thus Cassian collected the materials for his future writings. Besides other voluntary hardships, he speaks of the monks having to fetch water on their shoulders a distance of three or four miles (Coll. xxiv.10). Evidently in his estimation, as in that of his contemporaries generally, the vocation of a solitary is holier than even that of a coenobite.

About a.d.403 we find Cassian and Germanus at Constantinople, perhaps attracted by the reputation of Chrysostom. By him Cassian was ordained deacon, or, as some think, appointed archdeacon; and in his treatise de Incarnatione (vii.31) he speaks of Chrysostom with affectionate reverence. Cassian and his friend were entrusted with the care of the cathedral treasures; and, after the expulsion of Chrysostom, they were sent by his adherents on an embassy to Rome c. a.d.405 to solicit the intervention of Innocent I. No further mention is made of Germanus; nor is much known of Cassian during the next ten years. Probably he remained at Rome after Chrysostom died, a.d.407, until the approach of the Goths under Alaric, and thus acquired a personal interest in the Pelagian controversy.

After quitting Rome it has been inferred from a casual expression in the de Institutis (iii. i) that Cassian visited the monks of Mesopotamia; some say that he returned for a time to Egypt or Palestine; and by some he is identified with Cassianus Presbyter. Probably Cassian betook himself from Rome to Massilia (Marseilles). In this neighbourhood he founded two monasteries (one afterwards known as that of St. Victor) for men and women respectively. Tillemont says that the rule was taken from the fourth book of the de Institutis; and that many monasteries in that part of Gaul owed their existence to this foundation. As Cassian is addressed in the Epistola Castoris as |abbas,| |dominus,| and |pater| it is argued, but not with certainty, that he presided over his new monastery. Here he devoted himself to literary labours for many years, and died at a very great age, probably between a.d.440 and 450.

The de Institutis Renuntiantium, in twelve books, was written c.420 at the request of Castor, bp. of Apta Julia, in Gallia Narbonensis (Praef. Inst.). Books i.-iv. treat of the monastic rule; the others of its especial hindrances. The former were abridged by Eucherius Lugdunensis. The Collationes Patrum in Scithico Eremo Commorantium, in which Cassian records his Egyptian experiences, were evidently intended to complete his previous work; his purpose being to describe in the de Institutis the regulations and observances of monachism; in the Collationes its interior scope and spirit: in the former he writes of monks, in the latter of hermits. The Collationes were commenced for Castor, but after his death Collat. i.-x. were inscribed to Leontius, a kinsman of Castor, and Helladius, bishop in that district; xi.-xvii. to Honoratus, abbat of Lerins, and Eucherius, bp. of Lugdunum (Lyons); xviii.-xxiv. to the monks and anchorets of the Stoechades (Hyères). The Collationes have been well called a |speculum monasticum:| St. Benedict ordered them to be read daily; they were highly approved also by the founders of the Dominicans, Carthusians, and Jesuits. But the orthodoxy of the Collationes, especially of iii. and xiii., on the subject of Grace and Freewill, was impugned by St. Augustine and Prosper of Aquitania. [[97]Pelagianism.] An attempt was made by Cassiodorus and others to expurgate them. Cassian's last work, de Incarnatione Christi (cf. i.3, v.2), was directed against the Nestorian heresy, c.429, at the suggestion of Leo, then archdeacon and afterwards pope. Probably Cassian was selected for this controversy as a disciple of Chrysostom, the illustrious predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople (Inc. vii.31). The treatises de Spirituali Medicinâ Monachi, Theologica Confessio, and de Conflictu Virtutum ac Vitiorum are generally pronounced spurious.

Cassian is remarkable as a link between Eastern and Western Christendom, and as combining in himself the active and the contemplative life. It is difficult to overestimate his influence indirectly on the great monastic system of mediaeval Europe. His writings have always been in esteem with monastic reformers; especially at the revival of learning in the 15th cent. Even his adversary Prosper calls him |insignis ac facundus.| Cassian shews a thorough knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; often with a good deal of quaintness in his application of it. His style, if not so rich in poetic eloquence as that of his great opponent, is clear and forcible; and he is practical rather than profound. His good sense manifests itself in his preface to the Instituta, where he announces his intention to avoid legendary wonders and to regard his subject on its practical side. He insists continually on the paramount importance of the intention, disclaiming the idea of what is called the |opus operatum| -- for instance, on almsgiving (Inst. vii.21), fasting (Coll. i.7), and prayer (ix.3); and he is incessant in denouncing the especial sins of cloister-life, as pride, ambition, vainglory. The life of a monk, as he portrays it, is no formal and mechanical routine; but a daily and hourly act of self-renunciation (xxiv.2). On the other hand, he is by no means free from exaggerated reverence for mere asceticism; and, while encouraging the highest aspirations after holiness, allows too much scope to a selfish desire of reward. As a casuist he is for the most part sensible and judicious, e.g., in discriminating between voluntary and involuntary thoughts (i.17). But he presses obedience so far as to make it unreasonable and fanatical (Inst. iv.27, etc.), and under certain circumstances he sanctions deceit (Coll. xvii.).

On the subject of Predestination Cassian, without assenting to Pelagius, protested against what he considered the fatalistic tendency of St. Augustine. In the Collationes he merely professes to quote the words of the Egyptian |fathers|; and in the de Incarnatione he distinctly attacks Pelagianism as closely allied with the heresy of Nestorius (i.3, vi.14). Still, it is certain from the tenor of his writings that Cassian felt a very strong repugnance to any theory which seemed to him to involve an arbitrary limitation of the possibility of being saved. It has been well said that St. Augustine regards man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as sound and well, Cassian as sick. [[98]Pelagianism.]

The best critical ed. of Cassian's works is in the Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat. xiii. xvii., ed. by Petschenig. In Schaff and Wace's Post-Nicene Library there is a translation of most of them, with valuable prolegomena and notes by Dr. Gibson, Bp. of Gloucester.

[I.G.S.]

Cassiodorus (or rather, Cassiodorius) Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus (or rather, Cassiodorius) Magnus Aurelius, senator, and chief minister to the Ostrogothic princes of Italy, born at Scylacium (Squillace) in Bruttium, 469-470, of a noble, wealthy, and patriotic family. Cassiodorus was brought up under circumstances highly favourable to his education, which included the study of grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, mechanics, anatomy, Greek, and the sacred Scriptures. His learning and accomplishments early attracted the notice of Odoacer, the first barbarian ruler of Italy, by whom he was made |comes privatarum,| and subsequently|comes sacrarum largitionum| (Var. i.4). After the final defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Ravenna, 493, Cassiodorus retired to his patrimonial estate in Bruttium, and secured the wavering allegiance of the provincials to the cause of the new ruler; for this service he was appointed by Theodoric to the official government of Lucania and Bruttium. Happy in the art of ruling to the satisfaction of the governed without neglecting the interests of his master, he was summoned, upon the conclusion of his prefecture, to Ravenna, and advanced successively to the dignities of secretary, quaestor, master of the offices, praetorian prefect, patrician, and consul. Meanwhile he enjoyed an intimacy with the prince, which, reflected as it is in his Varieties, has given to that work much of the character and value of a state journal. Illiterate himself, Theodoric employed the eloquent pen of his minister in all public communications, and spent his leisure time in acquiring from him erudition of various kinds (Var. ix.24). It would seem to have been the ambition of Cassiodorus, whose genius for diplomacy was consummate, to bring about a fusion between the Arian conquerors and the conquered Catholic population of Italy, to establish friendly relations with the Eastern empire, and possibly to create at Rome a peaceful centre to which the several barbaric kingdoms which had established themselves in Gaul, Spain, and Africa might be attracted. The progress of Theodoric to the capital, where the schism between pope Symmachus and his rival, Laurentius, was then raging, a.d.500, was probably planned by him in view of this result (Var. xii.18, 19; cf. Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, c.39); but the temper of Theodoric's declining years must have disappointed the hopes of Cassiodorus, and in 524 he resolved to divest himself of his honours, and to seek shelter in his Calabrian retreat from the storm which proved fatal to his co-senators, Boëthius and Symmachus. After the death of Theodoric, 525, Cassiodorus again became conspicuous as the trusted adviser of his daughter Amalasuntha, widow of Eutaric, who acted as regent for her son Athalaric (Var. ix.25). By his influence the Goths were kept in subjection to the new rule, notwithstanding the Roman proclivities of Amalasuntha as displayed in the education of the young prince. The threatened danger of an invasion by Justinian was likewise averted by the ready aid of his purse and pen (Procop. B. G. i.3). Upon the enforced acceptance by Amalasuntha of Theodatus as co-regent, Cassiodorus again submitted to circumstances (Var. x.6, 7), and wrote letters soliciting the goodwill of the senate and the emperor (x.1, 2, 3). He was then praetorian prefect and continued to serve under Theodatus after the untimely death of Athalaric and the treacherous murder of Amalasuntha. One is tempted to suspect the nobleness of a character which, no matter how infamous the ruler, could accommodate itself with such singular tact to every change of government; but Cassiodorus was no mere time-server. His writings shew him to have been animated by a truly patriotic spirit; and if he adapted himself skilfully to the varying humours of the court, it was that he might be able to alleviate the misfortunes of his conquered countrymen.

Upon the triumph of Belisarius and the downfall of the Ostrogoths, Cassiodorus, now 70 years of age, withdrew to his native province and founded the monastery of Viviers at the foot of Mount Moscius, which he describes (xii.15). For 50 years he had laboured to preserve authority from its own excesses, to soften the manners of the Goths and uphold the rights of the Romans; but, weary of the superhuman task, turned to the cloister for repose and freedom. His activity, however, was not satisfied with the ordinary occupations of monastic life. Hence while the summit of the mountain was set apart for the hermits of the community (monasterium castellense), there sprang up at its base, beneath his own immediate auspices, a society of coenobites, devoted to the pursuit of learning and science (monasterium vivariense). He endowed the monastery with his extensive Roman library (Div. Lit. c.8). The monks were incited by his example to the study of classical and sacred literature, and trained in the careful transcription of manuscripts, in the purchase of which large sums were continually disbursed. Bookbinding, gardening, and medicine were among the pursuits of the less intellectual members of the fraternity (ib.28, 30, 31). Such time as he himself could spare from the composition of sacred or scientific treatises he employed in constructing self-acting lamps, sundials, and water-clocks for the use of the monastery. Nor was the influence of his example confined to his own age, institution, or country; the multiplication of manuscripts became gradually as much a recognized employment of monastic life as prayer or fasting; and for this the statue of Cassiodorus deserves an honourable niche in every library. The date of his death is uncertain. He composed his treatise on orthography in his 93rd year (de Orthogr. praef.).

Of his extant writings, the twelve Books of Varieties, consisting principally of letters, edicts, and rescripts, are the only work of real importance; apart, however, from the study of these pages, it is hardly possible to obtain a true knowledge of the Italy of the 6th cent. The very style of the writer, possessing, as it does, a certain elegance, yet continually deviating from pure idiom and good taste, is singularly characteristic of the age which witnessed the last flicker of Roman civilization under the Ostrogothic rule. It is as though the pen of Cicero had been dipped in barbaric ink. The general result is artificial and bizarre; but though his meaning is frequently obscured by his rhetoric, his manner is not as unpleasing as is often asserted. It will be sufficient to enumerate here the other writings of Cassiodorus, a more detailed account of which is given in Smith's D. of G. and R. Biogr. (2) Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae, libri xii., being an epitome of the ecclesiastical histories of Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoretus, as digested and translated by Epiphanius Scholasticus.? (3) Chronicon, chiefly derived from Eusebius, Jerome, and Prosper.? (4) Computus Paschalis. ?(5) Expositio in Psalmos, principally borrowed from St. Augustine.? (6) Expositio in Cantica Canticorum, of doubtful authenticity.? (7) De Institutione Divinarum Literarum, an interesting work as illustrating the enlightened spirit which animated the monastic life of Viviers.? (8) Complexiones in Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalypsin, first brought to light by the Marquis Scipio Maffei at Florence, in 1721.? (9) De Artibus ac Disciplinis Liberalium Literarum. ?(10) De Oratione et de Octo Partibus Orationis, of doubtful authenticity.? (11) De Orthographia. ?(12) De Anima. Of the lost writings of Cassiodorus the most important appears to have been de Rebus Gestis Gothorum, libri xii., of which we have the abridgment of Jornandes.

The best ed., together with an appendix containing the commentaries discovered by Maffei, is in Migne's Patr. vols. lxix. lxx.

[E.M.Y.]

Catharine, martyr of Alexandria
Catharine (Catharina, Catherine, etc.), St., virgin and martyr of Alexandria. Tillemont writes, in the 17th cent., that it would be hard to find a saint more generally reverenced, or one of whom so little was known on credible authority, and adds that no single fact about her is certain (Mém. eccl. vii. pp.447, 761; cf. Papebrocius, as quoted in Baron. Ann. Eccl. ed. Theiner, iii. ad ann.307).

The earliest mention of St. Catharine in the Eastern church (v. Menology of Basil) under the name of Heikatharina (possibly a corruption of he katharine, dim. of katharos, pure), is about the end of 9th cent. (Tillem. u.s.; Baillet, Vies des Saints, tom. viii. Nov.25); in 13th cent. she appears in the Latin Martyrologies (Baillet, ib.), the crusaders having brought her fame to Europe among other marvels from the East. Some time in the 8th or 9th cent. the monks on Mount Sinai disinterred the body, as they were eager to believe, of one of those Christian martyrs whose memory they cherished. Eusebius relates how a lady of Alexandria -- he omits her name -- was one of the victims of Maximinus early in 4th cent. (H. E. xiii.14). It was easy to identify the corpse as that of the anonymous sufferer, to invent a name for it, and to bridge over the distance between Alexandria and Mount Sinai. Simeon Metaphrastes, a legendist of Constantinople in 10th cent., gives a long account of St. Catharine's martyrdom, with horrible details of her tortures, an exact report of her dispute in public with the philosophers of the city and of the learned oration by which she converted them and the empress Faustina and many of the court, and how her corpse was transported to Mount Sinai by angels (Martin, Vies des Saints, tom. iii. pp.1841, seq.). But the whole story is plainly unhistorical, even apart from the significant fact that there is no external testimony to its authenticity. For in Eusebius the emperor's exasperation is provoked, not, as in the legend, by a refusal to abjure Christianity and to sacrifice to his gods, but by a refusal to gratify his guilty passion; and the punishment inflicted is merely exile, not torture and death. Even Baronius, who suggests emendations to make the legend more probable, hesitates to accept it as historical, while his commentator, with Tillemont and Baillet, abandons altogether the hopeless attempt to reconcile Simeon Metaphrastes with Eusebius.

The martyrdom of St. Catharine is commemorated in the Latin and Greek calendars on Nov.25; the discovery (|invention|) of her body on Mount Sinai on May 13 in the French Martyrology (Baillet, u.s.). In England her festival was promoted from the 2nd class (on which field labour, though no other servile work, was permitted) to the 1st class of holy-days in 13th cent. (Conc. Oxon. a.d.1222, c.8; Conc. Vigorn. a.d.1240, c.54), and retained as a black-letter day at the Reformation. It was left untouched in Germany at the retrenchment of holidays in a.d.1540. In France it was gradually abolished as a holiday, although the office was retained in 17th cent. (Baillet, u.s.). In Europe during the middle ages her name was held in great reverence. Louis IX. of France erected in Paris a costly church in her name; and the famous Maid of Orleans claimed her special favour and tutelage (Martin, u.s.). The head of St. Catharine was alleged to be preserved in her church in the Piazza of St. Peter's at Rome. She was regarded generally as the patron saint of schools, probably from the tradition of her learned controversy with the philosophers at Alexandria. A semi-monastic order, the Knights of Mount Sinai or of Jerusalem, instituted in Europe a.d.1063 in honour of St. Catharine, under the rule of St. Basil, bound themselves by vows to chastity, though not to celibacy (castità conjugale), to entertain pilgrims, and in rotation, each for two years, to guard the holy relics. Their dress was a white tunic, and embroidered on it a broken wheel, armed with spikes, in memory of the jagged wheel on which, according to the legend, the saint was racked, and which was miraculously shattered by divine interposition. The order became extinct after the fall of Constantinople; but in the 17th cent. the Basilian monks at Paris gave the badge of the order to any candidates who would take the vow of chastity and of obedience to the rule of St. Basil (Moroni, Dizion. Eccles. Reference to Giustiniani, Hist. Chronol. d. Ordini Equestri, p.121; Bonami, Catalogo d. Ord. Equest. p.21).

See Tillem. Mém. eccl.; Baronius (Caesar), Annales Ecclesiastici (Barri Ducis, 1864, 4to, tom. iii.); Bollandus Joannes, Les Actes des saints, etc. (Lyons, Besançon, 1865, 8vo, Nov.25); Life of St. Catharine, with its Latin original from the Cotton MSS., ed. with Intro., etc., by E. Einenkel (Lond.1884); Life and Martyrdom of St. Cath. of Alex. (Roxburghe Club, No.90, Lond.1884).

[I.G.S.]

Caulacau
Caulacau [[99]Basilides.]

Celsus, polemical adversary of Christianity
Celsus (1). Of the personal history of this, the first great polemical adversary of Christianity, we know nothing with certainty; and even Origen, from whom the whole of our knowledge of Celsus is derived, had received the work of Celsus, entitled alethes logos, or the True Discourse, without any hint of the history or date of its author.

But questions far more interesting than personal ones are raised by his attack on Christianity, of which enough has been preserved by Origen in his contra Celsum to convey to us a very tolerable idea of its nature. We must be on our guard at once against disparaging it too much, and against thinking too highly of its ability. Origen, indeed, who to all appearance is a very fair antagonist, speaks of it with contempt. But Celsus was not a mere polemical assailant; he was a philosopher on his own account, and held in certain respects by no means unenlightened opinions. He had strong faith in reason. |What evil is it,| he asks, |to be learned and to have cultivated the intellect with the best pursuits, to be and to appear wise? What obstacle are these things to the knowledge of God? Do not they rather lead and assist to the attainment of truth?| Nor had that similarity between the human and the animal frame, which the natural science of our own day insists upon, escaped his notice. Hence he deduces that ants |converse, have reason, notions of general truths, speech,| etc. (iv.84), and even that they have knowledge of God. It would be hard, again, to cavil at his ideas of the Divine Nature; he speaks of men |burning with the love of it| (i.8); he is intolerant of the association of it with anything that is mortal or perishable. He was not free from superstition; he believed in magic, and declared that serpents and eagles were more skilled in it than men (iv.86). Baur says that |in acuteness, in dialectical aptitude, in many-sided cultivation, at once philosophic and general, Celsus stands behind no opponent of Christianity.| Admitting that this panegyric is not groundless, we must add, that in vital insight Celsus was deficient. As an opponent of Christianity, the chief characteristic of Celsus is a strong, narrow, intolerant common sense. To him Christianity is an |exitiabilis superstitio|; he gives credence to every story against it on which he can lay his hands; he dwells with coarse jocularity on the Jewish tradition of Panthera and the Virgin Mary (i.28, sqq.); he unearths a certain Diagramma, a figure symbolizing the world, and consisting of a circle called Leviathan enclosing ten other circles, apparently used in the rites of some sect more or less approximating to the Christians (vi.22). He has no idea of regarding Christianity from the inside, and of inquiring into the reason of its influence; he uses jest for argument, and interprets everything in a bad sense. Treating of the flight of Jesus into Egypt, and afterwards (as he alleges) before the betrayal, he asks, |Had God need to fly from His enemies? Does fear belong to God?|

From such instances it is evident that Celsus wholly misapprehended the force of the doctrine that he was attacking. There are cases, indeed, in which he shews himself more acute. He challenges the evidence of Christianity, and asks, |Who saw the dove lighting on the head of Jesus after His baptism?| As to the Resurrection, he makes the remark which has been copied by Renan and others, that it was Mary Magdalene, |a fanatical woman,| who was the first witness of the resurrection, according to all the accounts (ii.55); and remarks on the disbelief invariably given to such accounts as those of the resurrection of Zamolxis, Pythagoras, Orpheus, Protesilaus, Hercules, and Theseus. But the most remarkable portions of his attack are those directed against the general character of Christianity. He dwells on the numerous sects of Christians, all of whom said, |Crede, si salvus fieri velis,| and asks how one is to judge between so many? Origen does not deny the fact, but maintains that it is a proof of the importance of that on which they debated, and further that they all set forth Jesus alone as the means of salvation (vi.11). Celsus accuses the Christians of lawlessness, and of keeping wholly to themselves, and not caring for those outside. He complains vehemently of them as discouraging learning, wisdom, and thought; as rejecting the authority of reason; as being the patrons of sinners, whereas to the heathen mysteries only |the holy and virtuous| were invited. He makes a great point of the opposition between the morality of the Old and New Testaments, in respect of the earthly success which is the crowning happiness of the former, and so strongly reprobated by the latter. Finally, he maintains that no revelation of the Supreme Being can be made; but that, if it could be made, it must be of universal and compelling efficacy; that, however, all that is possible is revelation by an angel or demon, and even that he denies to Judaism or Christianity.

The form of Celsus's work, the alethes logos, is well known. He begins with a dialogue between a Jew and a Christian, in which the Jew sets forth his objections to Christianity. But he had not any partiality for Judaism. He treats Moses and the Jewish Scriptures with a contempt which amusingly contrasts with the uncritical reverence which he pays to the Galactophagi of Homer, the Druids, and the Getae, whom he terms |wise and ancient nations| (i.16); and with which he accepts the stories of Linus and Musaeus, though afterwards he rejects those of Perseus and Amphion (i.64). In one of the most unpleasing passages of his work, he compares Jews and Christians to a set of worms or frogs squabbling in the mud, and saying, |God is, and we are next to Him, and it is for our sake that the whole world is made; and God will come and take us up to heaven, except those who are bad, whom He will burn with fire.|

The work of Origen against him is, as a whole, of much controversial merit and philosophical breadth. Origen, indeed, like Celsus, is not free from the superstitions of his time; thus he defends the star whose appearance is told in the second chapter of St. Matthew by a reference to comets, which, he remarks, portend future events, such as wars and pestilences. But, on the whole, there are few works of the ancient Fathers which can be read with more pleasure and profit. F. C. Baur has written an elaborate critique on Celsus in his work on Christendom and the Christian Church in the First Three Centuries (Tübingen, 1853). But especially valuable is Prof. Theodor Keim's monograph (Celsus's Wahres Wort. Zürich, 1873). Dr. Kelm gathers together, and translates, the fragments of Celsus contained in Origen; and adds disquisitions of much interest, both on Celsus himself and on two of his
contemporaries, Lucian of Samosata and Minucius Felix. Both Baur and Kelm rate Celsus too highly; but the general tendency of Christian writers has naturally been to underrate him. The date of Celsus's treatise is fixed by Keim as a.d.177 or 178. (Cf. Renan, Marc-Aurèle; Pelagaud, Étude sur Celse (Lyons, 1828); Aubé, Histoire des Persécutions (Paris, 1878); Lightfoot, Apost. Fath. II. i. pp.513 ff.)

[J.R.M.]

Cerdo, Gnostic teacher
Cerdo (1) (Kerdon), a Gnostic teacher of the first half of the 2nd cent., principally known as the predecessor of Marcion. Epiphanius (Haer.41) and Philaster (Haer.44) assert him to have been a native of Syria, and Irenaeus (i.27 and iii.4) states that he came to Rome in the episcopate of Hyginus. This episcopate lasted four years, and Lipsius (Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe) places its termination a.d.139-141. Bearing in mind the investigations of M. Waddington concerning the year of Polycarp's martyrdom, we prefer the earlier date, if not a still earlier one, and would put Cerdo's arrival at Rome as early as a.d.135.

According to the account of Irenaeus, Cerdo had not the intention of founding a sect apart from the church. He describes him as more than once coming to the church and making public confession, and so going on, now teaching his doctrine in secret, now again making public confession, now convicted in respect of his evil teaching, and removed, or, as some think, voluntarily withdrawing himself, from the communion of the brethren (aphistamenos tes ton adelphon sunodias). Epiphanius seems inaccurate in giving a heading to a sect of Cerdonians. Preceding writers speak only of Cerdo, not of Cerdonians; and probably his followers were early merged in the school of Marcion, who is said to have joined himself to Cerdo soon after his arrival in Rome.

Apparently Cerdo left no writings, nor is there evidence that those who report his doctrine had any knowledge of it independent of the form it took in the teaching of his Marcionite successors. Consequently we can not now determine with certainty how much of the teaching of Marcion had been anticipated by Cerdo, or what points of disagreement there were between the teaching of the two. Hippolytus, in his Refutation (x.19), makes no attempt to discriminate between their doctrines. Tertullian, in his work against Marcion, mentions Cerdo four times, but only as Marcion's predecessor. Irenaeus says that Cerdo taught that the God preached by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord; for that the former was known, the latter unknown; the former was just, the latter good. Pseudo-Tertullian's account (Haer.16) may be regarded as representing that in the earlier treatise of Hippolytus, which was also used by Philaster and Epiphanius. Thus we learn that Cerdo introduced two first principles (archai) and two gods, the one good, the other evil, the latter the creator of the world. It is an important difference that to the good god is opposed in the account of Irenaeus a just one; in that of Hippolytus, an evil one. In the later work of Hippolytus already cited, Cerdo is said to have taught three principles of the universe, agathon, dikaion, hulen. Ps.-Tertullian goes on to say that Cerdo rejected the law and the prophets, and renounced the Creator, teaching that Christ was the son of the higher good deity, and that He came not in the substance of flesh but in appearance only, and had not really died or really been born of a virgin; and that Cerdo only acknowledged a resurrection of the soul, denying that of the body. He adds, but without support from the other authorities, that Cerdo received only the Gospel of St. Luke, and that in a mutilated form; that he rejected some of Paul's epistles and portions of others, and completely rejected the Acts and the Apocalypse. There is every appearance that Ps.-Tertullian here transferred to Cerdo what in his authority was stated of Marcion. For a discussion of his other doctrines see Marcion.

[G.S.]

Cerenthus, opponent of St. John
Cerinthus, a traditional opponent of St. John. It will probably always remain an open question whether his fundamentally Ebionite sympathies inclined him to accept Jewish rather than Gnostic additions. Modern scholarship has therefore preferred to view his doctrine as a fusing together and incorporating in a single system tenets collected from Jewish, Oriental, and Christian sources; but the nature of that doctrine is sufficiently clear, and its opposition to the instruction of St. John as decided as that of the Nicolaitanes.

Cerinthus was of Egyptian origin, and in religion a Jew. He received his education in the Judaeo-Philonic school of Alexandria. On leaving Egypt he visited Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Antioch. From Palestine he passed into Asia and there developed tes autou apoleias barathron (Epiph. xxviii.2). Galatia, according to the same authority, was selected as his headquarters, whence he circulated his errors. On one of his journeys he arrived at Ephesus, and met St. John in the public baths. The Apostle, hearing who was there, fled from the place as if for life, crying to those about him: |Let us flee, lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is there.|

The value of this and other such traditions is confessedly not great -- that of the meeting with St. John in the bath is told of |Ebion| as well as of Cerinthus; -- but a stratum of fact probably underlies them, and they at least indicate the feeling with which the early |Churchmen| regarded him. Epiphanius, by whom the majority are preserved, derived the principal portion of his statements partly from Irenaeus, and partly, as Lipsius has shewn with high probability, from the now lost earlier work of Hippolytus on heresies.

His doctrines may be collected under the heads of his conception of the Creation, his Christology, and his Eschatology. His opinions upon two of these points, as preserved in existing works, support the usual view, that Cerinthus rather than Simon Magus is to be regarded as the predecessor of Judaeo-Christian Gnosticism.

Unlike Simon Magus and Menander, Cerinthus did not claim a sacred and mystic power. Caius the Presbyter can only assert against him that he pretended to angelic revelations (Eus., Theod.). But his mind, like theirs, brooded over the co-existence of good and evil, spirit and matter; and his scheme seems intended to free the |unknown God| and the Christ from the bare imputation of infection through contact with nature and man. Trained as he was in the philosophy of Philo, the Gnosis of Cerinthus did not of necessity compel him to start from opposition -- in the sense of malignity -- of evil to good, matter to spirit. He recognized opposition in the sense of difference between the one active perfect principle of life -- God -- and that lower imperfect passive existence which was dependent upon God; but this fell far short of malignity. He therefore conceived the material world to have been formed not by |the First God,| but by angelic Beings of an inferior grade of Emanation (Epiph.). More precisely still he described the main agent as a certain Power (dunamis) separate and distinct from the |Principality| (he huper ta hola authenteia, v. Suicer, Thes. s.v. auth.) and ignorant of ton huper panta theon. He refused in the spirit of a true Jew to consider the |God of the Jews| identical with that author of the material world who was alleged by Gnostic teachers to be inferior and evil. He preferred to identify him with the Angel who delivered the Law (Epiph. and Philastr.). Neander and Ewald have pointed out that these are legitimate deductions from the teaching of Philo. The conception is evidently that of an age when hereditary and instinctive reverence for the law served as a check upon the system-maker. Cerinthus is a long way from the bolder and more hostile schools of later Gnosticism.

The Christology is of an Ebionite cast and of the same transition character. It must not be assumed that it is but a form of the common Gnostic dualism, the double-personality afterwards elaborated by Basilides and Valentinus. Epiphanius, the chief source of information, is to many a mere uncritical compiler, sometimes following Hippolytus, sometimes Irenaeus. Now it is Christ Who is born of Mary and Joseph (Epiph. xxviii.1), now it is Jesus Who is born like other men, born of Joseph and Mary; He differs from others only in being more righteous, more prudent, and more wise; it is not till after baptism, when Jesus has reached manhood, that Christ, |that is to say, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove,| descends upon Jesus from above (anothen ek tou ano Theou; apo tes huper ta hola authenteias, Iren.), revealing to Him and through Him to those after Him the |unknown Father.| If, as Lipsius thinks (p.119), Irenaeus has here been influenced by the later Gnostic systems, and has altered the original doctrine of Cerinthus as given in Hippolytus, that doctrine would seem to be that he considered |Jesus| and |Christ| titles given indifferently to that One Personality Which was blessed by the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Power on high (he anothen dunamis). This Power enables Jesus to perform miracles, but forsakes Him at His Passion, |flying heavenwards.| So, again, it is Jesus, according to one passage of Epiphanius, Who dies and rises again, the Christ being spiritual and remaining impassible; according to a second, it is Christ Who dies, but is not yet risen, nor shall He rise till the general resurrection. That passage, however, which allows that the human body of Jesus had been raised from the dead separates its author completely from Gnostic successors.

The Chiliastic eschatology of Cerinthus is very clearly stated by Theodoret, Caius, Dionysius (Eus.), and Augustine, but not alluded to by Irenaeus. His silence need perhaps cause no surprise: Irenaeus was himself a Chiliast of the spiritual school, and in his notes upon Cerinthus he is only careful to mention what was peculiar to his system. The conception of Cerinthus was highly coloured. In his |dream| and |phantasy| the Lord shall have an earthly kingdom in which the elect are to enjoy pleasures, feasts, marriages, and sacrifices. Its capital is Jerusalem and its duration 1000 years: thereafter shall ensue the restoration of all things. Cerinthus derived this notion from Jewish sources. His notions of eschatology are radically Jewish: they may have originated, but do not contain, the Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage between the souls of the elect and the Angels of the Pleroma.

Other peculiar features of his teaching may be noted. He held that if a man died unbaptized, another was to be baptized in his stead and in his name, that at the day of resurrection he might not suffer punishment and be made subject to the exousia kosmopoios (cf. I. Cor. xv.29. He had learned at Alexandria to distinguish between the different degrees of inspiration, and attributed to different Angels the dictation severally of the words of Moses and of the Prophets; in this agreeing with Saturninus and the Ophites. He insisted upon a partial observance of the |divine| law, such as circumcision and the ordinances of the sabbath; resembling, in this severance of the genuine from the spurious elements of the law, the school which produced the Clementina and the Book of Baruch. He did not even scruple (acc. to Epiph.) to call him who gave the law |not good,| though the epithet may have been intended to express a charge of ethical narrowness rather than an identification of the Lawgiver with the poneros of Marcion. Epiphanius admits that the majority of these opinions rest upon report and oral communication. This, coupled with the evident confusion of the statements recorded, makes it difficult to assign to Cerinthus any certain place in the history of heresy. He can only be regarded generally as a link connecting Judaism and Gnosticism. The traditionary relations of Cerinthus to St. John have probably done more to rescue his name from oblivion than his opinions. In the course of time popular belief asserted that St. John had written his Gospel specially against the errors of Cerinthus, a belief curiously travestied by the
counter-assertion that not St. John but Cerinthus himself was the author of both the Gospel and the Apocalypse. It is not difficult to account on subjective grounds for this latter assertion. The Chiliasm of Cerinthus was an exaggeration of language current in the earliest ages of the church; and no work in N.T. reproduced that language so ingenuously as the Apocalypse. The conclusion was easy that Cerinthus had but ascribed the Apocalypse to the Apostle to obtain credit and currency for his own forgery. The |Alogi| argued upon similar grounds against the Fourth Gospel. It did not agree with the Synoptists, and though it disagreed in every possible way with the alleged doctrines of Cerinthus, yet the false-hearted author of the Apocalypse was, they asserted, certainly the writer of the Gospel.

The Cerinthians (known also as Merinthians) do not appear to have long survived. If any are identical with the Ebionites mentioned by Justin (Dial. c. Tryph.48), some gradually diverged from their master in a retrograde direction (Dorner, p.320); but the majority were engulfed in sects of greater note. One last allusion to them is found in the ecclesiastical rule applied to them by Gennadius Massiliensis: |Ex istis si qui ad nos venerint, non requirendum ab eis utrum baptizati sint an non, sed hoc tantum, si credant in ecclesiae fidem, et baptizentur ecclesiastico baptismate| (de Eccles. Dogmatibus, 22; Oehler, i.348).

The following primary and secondary authorities upon Cerinthus may be mentioned: Irenaeus, adv. Haer.; S. Hippolytus, Refutatio omn. Haeres. (|Philosophumena|); Theod. Haeret. Fab. Comp.; Epiphanius, Epit. Panar., Haer.; Philastrius, de Haeret., Corp. Haeresolog.; Augustine, de Haer. lib. viii.; Pseudo-Tertullian, Lib. adv. omn. Haeres. x.; Eus. Hist. Eccles.; Neander, Ch. Hist.; Ewald, Gesch. d. Volk. Israel; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist.; Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik d. Epiphanius; Dorner, Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi; Milman, Hist. of Christianity; Robertson, Hist. of Christ. Ch.; Westcott, Canon of N.T., p.243 (ed.1866); Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Canons, vol. i.220-262, vol. ii.973 etc.

[J.M.F.]

Christopher, martyr of universal fame
Christopher, St. (Christophoros), a martyr of universal fame, baptized by St. Babylas, the martyr-bp. of Antioch, who suffered (c.250) under Decius in Lycia. From early times the untrustworthy character of some of the popular stories of him has been acknowledged. Usuard (a.d.876) thus commemorated him (July 25) after St. James, according to the common Western use, in his Martyrologium: |At Samos in Licia. After he had been scourged with iron rods, and then delivered from the broiling flames by the virtue of Christ, his head was at last severed from his body, which had fallen full of arrow-wounds, and the martyr's witness was complete.|

For the legends respecting him (including the very familiar, but quite unauthentic, one of his bearing the Christ-child), see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed., s.v.), and two simple works written respectively by the late Archd. Allen and W. G. Pearse (S.P.C.K.).

[E.B.B.]

Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia
Chromatius, bp. of Aquileia, one of the most influential Western prelates of his day, the friend and correspondent of Ambrose, Jerome, Rufinus, and other leading ecclesiastics, and a warm supporter of Chrysostom against his Oriental assailants. He was a native of Aquileia, where he resided under the roof of his widowed mother, together with his brother Eusebius and his unmarried sisters. Jerome, writing c. a.d.374, congratulates the mother on her saintly offspring (Hieron. Ep. xliii. [vii.]). He was still a presbyter when he took part in the council held at Aquileia, against the Arians Palladius and Secundianus, a.d.381 (Ambrose, Gest. Concil. Aquil. tom. ii. pp.834, § 45; 835, § 51; 843, § 76). On the death of Valerian, Chromatius became bishop of his native city. The date is placed by Baronius towards the end of a.d.388.

It was at his request that St. Ambrose expounded the prophecy of Balaam in an epistolary form (Ambros. Ep. lib. i. ep.50, § 16). To his importunities, together with those of Heliodorus, bp. of Altino, and the liberality with which they both contributed to the expenses, we owe several of Jerome's translations of and commentaries on the books of O.T. (e.g. Tobit, Prov., Eccl., Cant., and Chron.). In a.d.392 he dedicated to Chromatius his two books of Commentaries on Habakkuk (Prolog. ad Habacc.), and c.397 yielded to his urgency and undertook the translation of Chronicles (Praef. in Paralip.).

Chromatius was also an early friend of Rufinus, who, whilst an inmate of the monastery at Aquileia, received baptism at his hands c. a.d.371 (Rufin. Apolog. in Hieron. lib. i. p.204). When, on the publication of Rufinus's translation of Origen's de Principiis, the friendship between Jerome and Rufinus was exchanged for violent animosity, Chromatius maintained his friendship with both, and did his best to reconcile them. Chromatius imposed on Rufinus the task of translating the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius into Latin, together with Origen's Homilies on Joshua (Rufin. Hist. p.15).

In the persecution of Chrysostom, Chromatius warmly embraced his cause. The position he held in the West is shewn by Chrysostom's uniting his name with those of Innocent bp. of Rome and Venerus bp. of Milan in the protest addressed to the Western church (Pallad. c. ii. ad fin.). Chromatius sent Chrysostom a letter of sympathy by the hands of the Western deputation (ib. c. iv.), and a.d.406 received from him a letter of grateful thanks (Chrys. Ep. clv.). Chromatius also wrote in Chrysostom's behalf to Honorius, who forwarded his letter to his brother Arcadius as an evidence of the sentiments of the Western church (Pallad. c. iii. iv.). He died c.407.

We have under his name 18 homilies on |the Sermon on the Mount,| commencing with a Tractatus Singularis de Octo Beatitudinibus, followed by 17 fragments of expositions on Matt. iii.15-17; v.; vi. His interpretation is literal, not allegorical, and his reflections moral rather than spiritual. Galland. Bibl. Vet. Patr. viii. c.15; Migne, Patr. Lat. xx.247 seq.; Tillemont, Mém. eccl. xi. pp.538 seq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p.378.

[E.V.]

Chrysippus, guardian of the Holy Cross
Chrysippus, one of four brothers, Cappadocians by birth, of whom two others were named Cosmas and Gabriel, as recorded by Cyril of Scythopolis. They left their native country for Jerusalem, that they might be instructed by the celebrated abbat Euthymius. In 455 Chrysippus was made the superior of the monastery of Laura, and subsequently of the church of the Resurrection, by the patriarch Juvenal. He was raised to the presbyterate, and on the elevation of his brother Cosmas, who had held the office, to the see of Scythopolis, was appointed |guardian of the Holy Cross,| which he held till his death. Chrysippus was a copious author, and according to Cyril, who praises him as thaumastos sungrapheus, |left many works worthy of all acceptation,| very few of which are extant. A |laudatio Joannis Baptistae,| delivered on the occasion of his festival, is printed in a Latin translation by Combefis (Biblioth. Concionat. vii.108). Fabricius mentions a Homilia in Deiparam, printed in the Auctarium Biblioth. Patr. (Paris, 1624), vol. ii. p.424, and a Laudatio Theodori Martyris, which appears to be lost. Photius (Cod.171) records his having read in a writing of Chrysippus a statement relating to the baptism of Gamaliel and Nicodemus by SS. Peter and John, and the martyrdom of the latter, which Chrysippus had derived from a fellow-presbyter, Lucian, to whom it had been revealed in a dream, together with the localities in which their bodies and that of St. Stephen were to be found. This is a very early example of the dreams indicating the position of valuable relics which we meet with so frequently in the middle ages, by which the failing fortunes of a religious house were revived, or the rival attractions of another establishment emulated (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Euthym.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.444; Combefis, Bibl. Conc. i.8.)

[E.V.]

Chrysogonus, martyr under Diocletian
Chrysogonus (1), martyr in the persecution of Diocletian, whose name was inserted in the Canon of the Mass from a very early period, which shews his importance, though little is now known of him. In the Menology he is commemorated along with Anastasia, Dec.22. He was of |great Rome,| |a man that feared God,| |teacher of the Christians|; |and when persecution was set on foot he was arrested and cast into prison.| |Diocletian, staying at Nice, wrote to Rome that all the Christians should die, and that Chrysogonus should be brought bound to Nice, and when he was brought he beheaded him.| For Nice we should probably read Nicomedia. In these acts it is easy to trace the effects of the first and second of Diocletian's edicts. Chrysogonus evidently was not one of the traditors, so numerous at Rome under the first edict, Feb. a.d.303. Hence, when by the second edict, not long after, all the clergy were committed to jail, he exercised great influence from his prison on the faithful, still for the most part unscathed and at large. The question is to what we are to refer the statement about the decree that all Christians should be killed, and that Chrysogonus should be brought to Bithynia. His passion is assigned to Dec.22. By the third edict, on the great anniversary festival of the emperor on the 21st, the clergy were to sacrifice if they were to be included in the general release of prisoners; if not, torture was to be employed to induce them. But there were no general orders for the arrest of all Christians. The rescript of Trajan was still in force. But the great festival must have brought to light many a recusant. They might not be executed, but if they died under torture it was strictly legal. When, in the spring of a.d.304, the fourth edict appears, it sets forth no new penalties; it merely interprets the previous decrees in all the grim pregnancy of their meaning: |certis poenis intereant.|

It may well be that the constancy of men like Chrysogonus, under their tortures, was among the things that drove Diocletian mad; and that he left word at his hurried departure from Rome (Dec.22, a.d.303), |Send him after me.| The martyrdom is assigned by several Western authorities to Aquileia or the neighbouring Aquae Gradatae in Friulia. The day to which it is almost universally assigned in the West, from the Calendar of Carthage onwards, is Nov.24. Anastasia's commemoration in the West is on Dec.25, and in some of the Hieronymian martyrologies her passion is assigned to Sirmium, which was probably the scene of Diocletian's illness. But Usuard tells that she was transported to the little isle Palmaruola (about lat.41°, long.31°) in the Tyrrhene sea.

[E.B.B.]

Chrysologus, Petrus, archbishop of Ravenna
Chrysologus, Petrus, archbp. of Ravenna, a.d.433-454, said to have been born at Forum Cornelii (Imola), according to Agnellus, in the episcopate of Cornelius, by whom he was brought up (Serm.165), ordained deacon, and made oeconomus of the church. The ordinary account of Peter's elevation to the see of Ravenna, which is repeated by successive biographers with ever-increasing definiteness of statement, does too much violence to the facts of history to be worthy of credit. The improbabilities of the story are exposed by Tillemont, and it is stigmatized by Dupin as |a groundless tale related by no credible author.| It is, however, given so circumstantially by Agnellus in his Liber Pontificalis that it may contain some distorted elements of truth.

In the 176 sermons of his still extant we look in vain for traces of the golden eloquence to which he owed his surname. They are very short, written in brief simple sentences; his meaning is always clear, and his language natural; but there is nothing in them calculated to touch the heart or move the affections. His fame as a preacher evidently depended more on voice and manner than on matter. His sermons are almost all on subjects from the gospels, usually the parables and miracles, commencing with a course of six on the prodigal son. Many other works ascribed to him, including commentaries on Scripture, and letters against the Arians, have all perished by fire, partly in the siege of Imola, by Theodoric, c. a.d.524; partly in the conflagration of the archbishop's library at Ravenna, c. a.d.700.

Tillemont, xv.114 seq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.432; Migne, Patr. Lat. lii. pp.9-680; Herzog, Real-Encyc. ii.695.

[E.V.]

Chrysostom, John, bishop of Constantinople
Chrysostom, John (Ioannes Chrusostomos). The surname |golden-mouthed,| given to the great preacher of Antioch, and bp. of Constantinople, on account of the magnificent brilliancy of his eloquence (cf. Petrus Chrysologus), has entirely superseded his personal name John, which alone is found in contemporary or closely subsequent writers. When the epithet was first applied is unknown. There is no trace of it in his lifetime, but it was in common use before the end of the 5th cent.

Chrysostom was born at Antioch probably A.D.347. He was of good family; his father Secundus filling the post of |magister militum| (stratelates), one of the eight men of distinguished rank -- illustres viros (Veget. de Re Militari, ii.9) -- who commanded the imperial armies. His mother, Anthusa, was also a lady of good family (Pallad. p.40; Socr. vi.3) Anthusa, while John was an infant, was left a widow at the age of twenty, refused all offers of marriage, and devoted herself to the education of her boy and the care of his property (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c.55). Her unremitting devotion to her maternal duties excited admiration even from the heathen (Ep. ad Vid. Jun. i. c.2, p.340).

St. Chrysostom's life may be conveniently divided into five epochs:? (a) His life as a layman at Antioch till his baptism and admission as a reader, a.d.347-370;? (b) his ascetic and monastic life, a.d.370-381;? (c) his career as deacon, presbyter, and preacher at Antioch, a.d.381-398;? (d) his episcopate at Constantinople, a.d.398-404;? (e) exile, a.d.404-407.

(a) Life as a Layman at Antioch. -- The intellectual power manifested at a very early age marked him out as fitted for one of the learned professions. The bar was chosen, and at about 18 years of age he began to attend the lectures of the celebrated sophist Libanius, the intimate friend and correspondent of the emperor Julian, and tutor of Basil the Great, who had come to end his days in his native city of Antioch. The genius and ability of the pupil excited the greatest admiration in his master, who, being asked on his deathbed, c. a.d.395, which of his pupils he thought worthiest to succeed him, replied, |John, if the Christians had not stolen him from us| (Soz. H. E. lib. viii. c.2). When Chrysostom commenced practice as an advocate, his gift of eloquence speedily displayed itself. His speeches were listened to with delight, and were highly praised by Libanius, no mean judge of rhetoric. A brilliant career was opening before the young man, leading to all that men most covet, wealth, fame, high place. But a change, gradual but mighty, came over his spirit, and like another young student of the neighbouring province of Cilicia, |the things that were gain to him he counted loss for Christ.| Like Timothy at the knees of Eunice, |from a child| Chrysostom had learnt from his devout mother the things that were |able to make him wise unto salvation,| and his soul revolted at the contrast between the purity of the gospel standard and the baseness of the aims and viciousness of the practices prevalent in the profession he had chosen. To accept a fee for making the worse appear the better cause seemed to his generous and guileless soul to be bribed to lie -- to take Satan's wages -- to sin against his own soul. His disinclination to the life of a lawyer was much increased by the influence of the example of his intimate friend Basil, the companion of his studies and the sharer of all his thoughts and plans. The two friends had agreed to follow the same profession; but when Basil decided on adopting a monastic life, and to follow, in Chrysostom's words, |the true philosophy,| Chrysostom was unable at once to resolve to renounce the world, to the attractions of which his ardent nature was by no means insensible, and of which he was in some danger of becoming a slave. He was |a never-failing attendant at the law courts, and passionately enamoured of the theatre| (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c.14, p.363). His friend Basil's adoption of an ascetic life at first caused an interruption of their intercourse. But life was intolerable separated from his second self. He renewed his intimacy with Basil. The pleasures and pursuits of the world became distasteful to him, and he soon resolved to abandon it altogether, quitting mother and home, and finding some sacred retreat where he and his friend could devote themselves to strict ascetism (ib. c.4). This decisive change -- Chrysostom's conversion we should now call it -- was greatly promoted by the acquaintance he formed at this period with the mild and holy Meletius, the orthodox and legitimate bp. of Antioch, who had recently returned to his see after one of his many banishments for the faith. Meletius quickly observed the intellectual promise of the young lawyer, and, enamoured of the beauty of his disposition, sought frequent opportunities of intercourse, and in a prophetic spirit declared the greatness of his future career (Pallad. p.40). Up to this time Chrysostom, though the child of Christian parents, had remained unbaptized, a not unfrequent practice at this epoch. The time for public profession of his faith was now come, and after a probation of three years, Meletius baptized him, and ordained him reader. This was in a.d.369 or 370, when Chrysostom was about 23 years old (Pallad. p.41).

(b) Ascetic and Monastic Life. -- Baptism restored the balance which Chrysostom tells us had been so seriously disturbed by Basil's higher religious attainments (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c.3, p.363). He became in the truest sense |a new man| (Pallad. p.184). His desire to flee from the world, with his beloved Basil, was established, and only frustrated by the passionate entreaties of his weeping mother that her only child, for whom she had given up all, would not desert her. The whole scene is narrated by Chrysostom in a passage of exquisite simplicity and tenderness (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c.5, pp.363-365). His affectionate nature could not resist a mother's tears. In spite of Basil's continued urgency, he yielded so far as to remain at home. But if out of filial regard he abstained from deserting his home for a monastery, he would make a monastery of his home. He practised the most rigid asceticism, ate little and seldom, and that of the plainest, slept on the bare ground, and rose frequently for prayer. He rarely left the house, and, to avoid his old habit of slander, kept almost unbroken silence. It is not surprising that his former associates called him morose and unsociable (ib. lib. vi. c.12, p.431).

Upon some of these associates, however, his influence began to tell. Two of his fellow pupils under Libanius, Maximus, afterwards bp. of Seleucia, and Theodorus, bp. of Mopsuestia, adopted the ascetic life under the superintendence of Diodorus and Carterius, who presided over a monastery in or near Antioch. From Diodorus Chrysostom learnt the clear common-sense mode of interpreting Holy Scripture (repudiating the allegorizing principle), of which he and Theodore became such distinguished representatives. The inability of his friend Theodore to part definitely with the world, and stifle natural instincts, was the occasion of the composition of Chrysostom's earliest extant treatises. Theodore's love for a girl named Hermione led him to leave the ascetic brotherhood and return to secular life. Chrysostom's heart was deeply stirred at this. He regarded it as a sin to be repented of and forsaken if Theodore would not forfeit salvation. He addressed two letters to him full of impassioned eloquence, earnestly calling him to penitence and amendment. His fervid remonstrances succeeded. Theodore gave up his engagement, and finally abandoned the world (ad Theodorum Lapsum, Ep. i. ii.; Socr. H. E. vi.3).

We now come to a passage in Chrysostom's life which we must condemn as utterly at variance with truth and honour. Yet we must bear in mind that the moral standpoint of the Fathers was on this point different from our own. It was generally held that the culpability of an act of deception depended upon its purpose, and that if this was good the deception was laudable. Chrysostom himself says, |There is a good deceit such as many have been deceived by, which one ought not even to call a deceit at all,| instancing that of Jacob, |which was not a deceit, but an economy| (Homil. vi. in Col. ii.8). On this principle, which every healthy conscience now repudiates, Chrysostom proceeded to plan and execute a deliberate fraud to entrap his friend Basil into consecration to the episcopate. Several sees were now vacant in Syria, which it was desirable to fill without delay. A body of prelates met at Antioch for this purpose. Among those suitable for the episcopate, Chrysostom and Basil were pointed out, though they were not yet even deacons. Chrysostom's awful sense of the weight and responsibility of the priestly office, which breathes in every line of his treatise de Sacerdotio, and of his own unfitness, made him tremble at the idea of ordination. Basil, on the contrary; he considered to be well qualified, and he was fully resolved that the church should not lose the services of his friend. While, therefore, he pretended acquiescence in his friend's proposition that they should decide alike in the matter, he secretly resolved to avoid the dreaded honour by concealment. When the time of consecration arrived, and Basil was carried before the bishops, and reluctantly forced to accept ordination, Chrysostom was nowhere to be found, and it was represented to Basil that he had been already consecrated. When too late Basil discovered the unfaithfulness to their compact, and upbraided Chrysostom; his complaints were received with laughter and loud expressions of thankfulness at the success of his plot (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c.3, p.365). [[105]Basilius.]

About a.d.374 Chrysostom carried into effect his resolution of devoting himself to an ascetic life, and left his home for a monastic community on one of the mountain ranges S. of Antioch. As there is no reference in any of his writings to any opposition from his mother, it is probable that her death had left him free. After four years spent in unremitting austerities, he left the society of his kind, and, dwelling in a mountain cavern, practised still more rigid self-discipline (Pallad. p.41). At the end of two years his health so completely gave way that he was forced to return to his home in Antioch. To these austerities may be attributed that debilitated frame, weakness of digestion, and irritability of temperament, to which his constant physical sufferings and many of his chief difficulties and calamities are not remotely traceable.

(c) A Preacher and Presbyter at Antioch. -- Chrysostom did not return to Antioch to be idle. He was ordained deacon by Meletius a.d.381, shortly before the latter left to preside over the oecumenical council of Constantinople (Pallad. p.42). Meletius died during the session of the council, and his successor Flavian raised Chrysostom to the presbyterate early in a.d.386 (ib.). During his five years' diaconate he had gained great popularity by his aptness to teach, and his influence had made itself widely felt at Antioch. While deacon he composed the de Virginitate; the Ep. ad Viduam Juniorem, addressed to the young widow of Therasius (c.381); its sequel de non Iterando Conjugio; and the orations de Martyre Babyla. After his ordination he preached his first sermon before the bishop, and a vast crowd was gathered by the fame of his eloquence (Sermo, cum Presbyt. fuit Ordinatus, de se ac de Episcopo, deque Populi Multitudine). The succeeding ten years, embracing Chrysostom's life as a presbyter at Antioch, were chiefly devoted to the cultivation of the gift of pulpit eloquence on which his celebrity mainly rests. It was during this period that |the great clerk and godly preacher,| as our First Homily terms him, delivered the greater part of the discourses extant, which must be but a very small portion of those preached, for he preached regularly twice a week, on Saturday and Sunday, besides Lent and saints' days, and, as we learn from his homilies on Genesis, sometimes five days in succession (Tillemont, tom. xi. p.34.). Flavian appointed him frequently to preach in the cathedral. Whenever he preached the church was densely thronged, the hearers testifying their delight in loud and noisy applause. This was highly offensive to Chrysostom, who often rebuked their unseemly behaviour (adv. Arian. de Incomprehen. Dei Natura, Homil. iii. c.7, p.471; Homil. iv. § 6, p.480). The most remarkable series of homilies, containing his grandest oratorical flights, and evincing most strikingly his power over the minds and passions of men, are the Homilies on the Statues, delivered in March and April, a.d.387, while the fate of Antioch was hanging in awful suspense on the will of the justly offended emperor Theodosius. The demand for a large subsidy to pay a liberal donative to the army had exasperated the citizens. The ominous silence with which the proclamation of the edict was received, Feb.26, broken only by the wailings of the women, was soon succeeded by mutinous cries, and all the symptoms of a popular outbreak. The passions of the mob were stimulated by those who had nothing to lose and might gain from public disorder. The influence of Flavian might have calmed the tumult, but he was from home. The rabble, swelling in numbers and fury as it rushed through the city, proceeded to acts of open violence. The public baths were ransacked; the praetorium was attacked and the mob with difficulty repulsed, the governor saving himself by flight through a back door, and finally the hall of judgment was stormed. This was the scene of their crowning act of insurrection. The portraits of the emperors, which decorated the walls of the court, were pelted with stones and filth, and torn to shreds, the Augusti themselves were loaded with curses, and the statues of Theodosius and his deceased wife, the excellent Flaccilla, were torn from their pedestals and ignominiously dragged through the streets. Further outrages were only stopped by the appearance of a band of archers dispatched by the prefect. The mutiny quelled, calm reflection set before them the probable consequences of this recent fury. Panic fear, as is usual, succeeded the popular madness. The outbursts of unrestrained passion, to which the emperor was subject, were well known. The insult to his beloved empress would be certain to be keenly resented and terribly avenged. It was only too probable that an edict would be issued for the destruction of Antioch or for the massacre of its inhabitants, foreshadowing that of Thessalonica, which three years later struck horror into the Christian world. Their only hope lay in the intercession of Flavian, who, regardless of his age and the serious illness of his sister, had instantly started for the imperial city, to lay at the emperor's feet the confession of his people and to supplicate for pardon. Day by day, during this terrible suspense, lasting for three weeks, Chrysostom devoted his noblest gifts as a sacred orator to awaken repentance among the dissolute crowds hanging on his impassioned words. Just before Easter Flavian returned with the glad tidings that their crime was pardoned. The homily delivered by Chrysostom on Easter day (the 21st of the series) describes the interview of Flavian with Theodosius, the prelate's moving appeal for clemency, and its immediate effect on the impressionable mind of the emperor, who granted a complete amnesty and urged Flavian's instant return to relieve the Antiochenes from their terrible suspense. One happy result of this crisis was the conversion of a large number of the still heathen population to Christianity (Homil. de Anna. I. c.1, vol. iv. p.812).

These events occurred in the spring of A.D.387. For ten years longer Chrysostom continued as a preacher and teacher at Antioch. To this period may be assigned his commentaries on Gen. and Pss., St. Matt. and St. John, Acts, Rom., Con, Gal., and Eph. Those on Tim. i., ii., Tit., and on the other Epp. of St. Paul, are considered by Tillemont to have been certainly delivered at Constantinople (Till. Mém. eccl. tom. xi. pp.92-97, 370-376).

(d) Episcopate of Constantinople. -- Chrysostom's residence at Antioch ended in a.d.397. In Sept. the bp. of Constantinople, the amiable and indolent Nectarius, died. The vacant see was one of the most dignified and influential in the church. Public expectation was excited as to his successor. The nomination rested with the emperor Arcadius, but virtually with the prime minister Eutropius. Passing by numerous candidates, he determined to elevate one who had no thought of being a candidate at all, John of Antioch, whose eloquence had impressed him during a recent visit to Antioch on state business. Chrysostom's name was received with delight by the electing prelates, and at once unanimously accepted. The difficulty lay with Chrysostom himself and the people of Antioch. The double danger of a decided |nolo episcopari| on Chrysostom's part and of a public commotion among the Antiochenes was overcome by stratagem. Asterius, the |comes orientis,| in accordance with secret instructions from Eutropius, induced Chrysostom to accompany him to a martyr's chapel outside the city walls. There he was apprehended by the officers of the government, and hurried over the 800 miles under military escort from stage to stage, and reached his imperial see a closely guarded prisoner. His remonstrances were unheeded; his inquiries met with obstinate silence. Resistance being useless, Chrysostom felt it more dignified to submit. He was consecrated Feb.26, 398, by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. The duty was very unwelcome, for Theophilus had left no stone unturned to secure the nomination of Isidore, a presbyter of Alexandria. The ceremony was witnessed by a vast multitude, assembled to listen to the inaugural sermon of one of whose eloquence they had heard so much. This |sermo enthronisticus| is lost (Socr. H. E. vi.2; Soz. H. E. viii.2; Pallad. p.42).

Constantinople soon learnt the difference between the new bishop and his predecessor. Chrysostom at once disfurnished the episcopal residence, and disposed of the costly plate and rich equipment for the benefit of the poor and the hospitals (Pallad. pp.46, 47). Instead of banqueting with the laity, he ate the simplest fare in his solitary chamber (ib. pp.101, 102). He studiously avoided the court and association with the great, and even ordinary conversation, except when duty compelled (ib. pp.103, 120-123). Such behaviour could hardly fail to be misrepresented. To the populace, accustomed to the splendour of former bishops, Chrysostom's simplicity appeared unworthy of his lofty station, and he was openly charged with parsimony, moroseness, and pride (Socr. H. E. vi.4; Soz. H. E. viii.9). Nor was the contrast more acceptable to most of his clergy, whose moral tone was far from elevated. Chrysostom, with uncompromising zeal, attempted to bring them back to simplicity of life and to activity in their calling. He deposed some on charges of homicide and adultery, and repelled others from the Eucharist. He set his face resolutely against the perilous custom of receiving |spiritual sisters| (suneisaktai), which was frequently the source of the grossest immoralities. To obviate the attractions of the Arians who at night and at early dawn gathered large crowds by their antiphonal hymns under porticoes and in the open air, as well as for the benefit of those unable to attend the church in the day, he revived the old custom of nocturnal services with responsive chanting, to the indignation of those clergy to whom ease was dearer than the spiritual improvement of their flocks (Pallad. p.47; Soz. H. E. viii.8; Homil. in Acta, 26, c.3, p.212). His disciplinary measures were rendered more unpopular by his lack of a conciliatory manner, coupled with irritability of temper and no small obstinacy (Socr. H. E. vi.3, 21; Soz. H. E. viii.3). He was also too much swayed by his archdeacon, Serapion, a proud, violent man, who is reported to have exclaimed at an assembly of the clergy, |You will never be able, bishop, to master these mutinous priests unless you drive them before you with a single rod| (Pallad.18, 19; Socr. H. E. vi.4; Soz. viii.9).

But while his relations with his clergy were becoming increasingly embittered, he stood high in favour with the people, who flocked to his sermons, and drank in greedily his vehement denunciations of the follies and vices of the clergy and aristocracy (Socr. vi.4, 5). He was no less popular with Arcadius and his empress, the Frankish general's daughter, Eudoxia, who was beginning to supplant the author of her elevation, the eunuch Eutropius, and to make her feeble partner bow to her more powerful will. For a time the bishop and the empress, between whom was afterwards so uncompromising an hostility, vied with one another in expressions of mutual admiration and esteem. Towards the latter part of 398, not long after Chrysostom had taken possession of his see, the relics of some anonymous martyrs were translated by night with great ceremony to the martyry of St. Thomas, on the seashore of Drypia, about nine miles from the city, which the empress had instituted in a fit of religious excitement. So lengthened was the procession and so brilliant the torches, that Chrysostom compares it to a river of fire. The empress herself in royal diadem and purple, attended by nobles and ladies of distinction, walked by the side of the bishop, in the rear of the chest enclosing the sacred bones. It was dawn before the church was reached and Chrysostom began his sermon. It was full of extravagant laudations of Euxodia and of ecstatic expressions of joy, which afterwards formed a ground of accusation against him (Homil. Dicta Postquam Reliquiae, etc. vol. xii. pp.468-473). The next day the emperor with his court visited the shrine, and, laying aside his diadem, reverenced the holy martyrs. After the departure of Arcadius Chrysostom delivered a second enthusiastic homily in praise of his piety and humility (Homil. Dicta Praesente Imperatore, ib. pp.474-480).

At the same period the largeness of Chrysostom's heart and the sincerity of his Christian love were manifested by his care for the spiritual state of the numerous Goths at Constantinople. Some were Catholics, but the majority were Arians. He had portions of the Bible translated into their vernacular, and read by a Gothic presbyter to his countrymen in the church of St. Paul, who afterwards addressed them in their own tongue (Homil.8, vol. xii. pp.512-526). Chrysostom himself frequently preached to them by an interpreter. He ordained native readers, deacons, and presbyters, and dispatched missionaries to the Gothic tribes who still remained on the banks of the Danube, and consecrated a bishop from among themselves named Unilas (Theod. H. E. v.30; Ep.14, 207). Having learnt that the nomad Scythian tribes on the banks of the Danube were desirous of being instructed in the faith, he at once dispatched missionaries to them, and corresponded with Leontius, bp. of Ancyra, with regard to the selection of able men from his diocese for this work (ib. H. E. v.31). In his zeal for the suppression of pagan idolatry he obtained an imperial edict, a.d.399, for the destruction of the temples in Phoenicia, which was carried out at the cost of some Christian ladies of Constantinople, who also supplied funds for missionary exertions in that country (ib. v.29). These efforts for the propagation of the faith were very dear to Chrysostom's heart, and even during his exile he superintended and directed them by letter (Ep.53, 54, 123, 126). He endeavoured to crush false doctrine wherever it was making head. Having learnt that the Marcionite heresy was infecting the diocese of Cyrus, he wrote to the then bishop, desiring him to expel it, and offering to help him in putting in force the imperial edicts for that purpose. He thus evidenced, in the words of Theodoret, that, like St. Paul, he bore in his heart |the care of all the churches| (H. E. v.31).

Eutropius fell from power in 399. He had hoped for a subservient bishop; but not only did Chrysostom refuse to countenance his nefarious designs, but denounced his vices from the pulpit with unsparing fidelity. The unhappy man, hurled in a moment from the pinnacle of his greatness, took refuge for a while in the church, but was ultimately beheaded at Chalcedon (Socr. H. E. vi.5; Soz. H. E. viii.7; Philost. H. E. xi.6; Zosimus, v.18; Chrys. Hom. in Eutrop. vol. iii. pp.454-460; de Capto Eutrop. ib. pp.460-482).

Early in a.d.400 Gainas, the haughty Goth who had had a large share in the downfall of Eutropius, demanded the surrender of three leading ministers, Aurelianus the consul, Saturninus, and count John the empress's chief favourite. To relieve the emperor of embarrassment, they surrendered themselves. Their lives were in extreme danger. Chrysostom resorted to Gainas's camp, pleaded the cause of the hostages, and endeavoured to persuade the Goth to lessen his extravagant demands to be made consul and commander-in-chief, which would have placed the emperor at his mercy. Gainas had urged his claim for one of the churches of Constantinople for Arian worship, but Chrysostom's eloquence and spiritual authority overpowered him, and he desisted for a time at least in pressing his demand (Soz. H. E. viii.4; Socr. H. E. vi.6; Theod. H. E. v.32, 33; Chrys. Hom. cum Saturn. et Aurel. etc., vol. iii. pp.482-487). The sequel belongs to general history. The emperor, as a last resort, declared Gainas a public enemy; the inhabitants of the city rose against the Goths; a general massacre ensued, and Gainas was forced to flee for safety (Zosim. v.18-22).

At this epoch the power and popularity of Chrysostom was at its culminating point. We have now to trace its swift and complete decline. The author of his overthrow was the empress Eudoxia. Her shortlived religious zeal had burnt itself out, and when she found Chrysostom too clear-sighted to be imposed upon by an outward show of piety, and too uncompromising to connive at wrong-doing even in the highest places, and that not even her rank as empress could save her and her associates from public censure, her former attachment was changed into the most implacable enmity. Jealousy of Chrysostom's influence over Arcadius contributed to her growing aversion. Chrysostom was now the only obstacle to her obtaining undisputed supremacy over her imbecile husband, and through him over the Eastern world. Means must be found to get rid of this obstacle also. Chrysostom himself afforded the opportunity in his excess of zeal for the purity of the church by overstepping his episcopal jurisdiction, not then so strictly defined as in modern dioceses. Properly speaking, the bp. of Constantinople had no jurisdiction beyond the limits of his own city and diocese. For Constantinople, as a city whose imperial dignity was of modern creation, was not a metropolitan see, but subject ecclesiastically to the metropolitan of Heraclea (otherwise Perinthus), who was exarch of the province of Thrace. The claims of Heraclea becoming antiquated, the prelates of Alexandria, as the first of the Eastern churches, gradually assumed metropolitan rights over Byzantium. But subjection to any other see was soon felt to be inconsistent with the dignity of an imperial city, and by the third canon of the oecumenical council held within its walls, a.d.381, its bishop was declared second to the bp. of Rome, after him coming the metropolitans of Alexandria and Antioch. But this precedence was simply honorary, and although Nectarius had set the precedent followed by Chrysostom of exercising jurisdiction in the Thracian and Asiatic dioceses, the claim did not receive legal authority until the council of Chalcedon (can.28). At a conference of bishops held at Constantinople in the spring of a.d.400, Eusebius of Valentinopolis accused his brother bishop, Antoninus of Ephesus, of selling ordination to bishoprics, melting down the church plate for his own benefit, and other grave offences (Pallad. p.126). A delegacy was dispatched to Asia to investigate these charges. Many dishonest and vexatious delays occurred, and the accused bishop died before any decision could be arrived at (ib. pp.130-133). The Ephesian clergy and the bishops of the circuit appealed to Chrysostom to make peace. Prompt at the call of duty, Chrysostom, though it was the depth of winter (Jan.401), and he in very feeble health, proceeded to Ephesus. On his arrival he exercised metropolitical authority, deposing six bishops convicted of simony, and correcting with unsparing hand the venality and licentiousness of the clergy (ib. pp.134-135; Socr. H. E. vi.10; Soz. H. E. viii.6). His excessive severity did not reconcile the reluctant ecclesiastics to the questionable authority upon which he acted. The results of Chrysostom's absence of three months from Constantinople were disastrous. He had entrusted his episcopal authority to Severian, bp. of Gabala, who basely abused his trust to undermine Chrysostom's influence at court. The cabal against Chrysostom was headed by the empress and her favourite ladies, of whose extravagance of attire and attempts to enhance their personal charms, the bishop had spoken with contemptuous ridicule, and among whom the wealthy and licentious widows Marsa, Castricia, and Eugraphia, |who used for the ruin of their souls the property their husbands had gained by extortion| (Pallad. pp.35, 66), were conspicuous. This cabal received an important accession by the arrival of two bishops from Palestine, Antiochus of Ptolemais and the grey-haired Acacius of Beroea (Pallad.49). [[106]Acacius; Antiochus.] Serapion, Chrysostom's archdeacon, had kept his master informed of Severian's base proceedings, and had continually urged his speedy return. His return was the signal for the outbreak of open hostilities, which Chrysostom's vehement and unguarded language in the pulpit exasperated. Soon after his return, he chose his text from the history of Elijah, and exclaimed, |Gather together to me those base priests that eat at Jezebel's table, that I may say to them, as Elijah of old, 'How long halt ye between two opinions?'| (ib.74). This allusion was only too clear. He had called the empress Jezebel. The haughty Eudoxia could not brook the insult, and the doom of Chrysostom was sealed. But until the plot was ripe it was necessary to keep up the semblance of friendship, and even of deference, towards one who could still make ecclesiastical authority felt. Some half-heard words of Severian, uttered in annoyance at Serapion's discourtesy, were distorted by the archdeacon into a blasphemous denial of Christ's Divinity (Socr. H. E. vi.10; Soz. H. E. viii.10). The charge was rashly credited by Chrysostom, who, without further inquiry, sentenced him to excommunication and banishment from Constantinople. Chrysostom was still the idol of the common people. The news spread that Severian had insulted their bishop, and Severian's life would have been in danger had he not speedily fled to Chalcedon, and put the Bosphorus between himself and the enraged mob. All the authority of the emperor and the passionate entreaties of the empress, who even placed her infant son on Chrysostom's knees in the church of the Apostles as an irresistible plea for yielding to her petition, were needed to extort forgiveness for Severian. Chrysostom interceded for him with the populace (Hom. de Recipiendo Severiano, vol. iii. pp.492-494), and the semblance of peace was restored (Socr. and Soz. u.s.).

The secret intrigues, checked for the time, soon broke out afresh. The allusion to Jezebel was not forgiven by Eudoxia, and Severian was equally implacable. The clergy were eager to rid themselves of one who, in the words of Palladius, |like a lamp burning before sore eyes,| was intolerable from the brilliancy of his virtues. All they wanted was a powerful leader.

Such a leader was found in Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, who had been unwillingly compelled to consecrate Chrysostom. A pretext for his interference was afforded by the hospitality shewn by Chrysostom and his friends to some Egyptian monks, known from their remarkable stature as |the Tall Brethren| [[108]Ammonius], whom Theophilus had treated with great injustice and cruelty, nominally because of their Origenistic views, but really because they were privy to his own avarice and other vices (Isid. Pelusiot. Ep i.142). Chrysostom had received them kindly, and written in their behalf to Theophilus, who replied with an indignant remonstrance against protecting heretics and interfering in the affairs of another diocese. The monks claimed the right of prosecuting their defamers (Pallad. pp.51-62; Socr. H. E. vi.7, 9; Soz. H. E. viii.12, 13). A personal appeal to Eudoxia secured them this. Theophilus was summoned to appear before a council for the investigation of the whole case of these Nitrian monks, while their calumniators were called upon to substantiate their charges or suffer punishment. Theophilus, however, devised a scheme for turning the tables upon Chrysostom, and transforming the council into one before which Chrysostom himself might be arraigned (Pallad. p.64). [[109]Dioscorus.]

To pave the way for the execution of this plot Theophilus induced Epiphanius, the venerable bp. of Salamis, to visit Constantinople, with the decrees of a council recently held in Cyprus, by which the tenets of Origen which the Nitrian monks were charged with holding were condemned, for Chrysostom's signature (Socr. H. E. vi.10-14; Soz. H. E. viii.14). Epiphanius petulantly declined the honours and hospitality prepared for him until Chrysostom had formally condemned Origen and expelled |the Tall Brethren.| Chrysostom replied that he left both to the coming council, and would not prejudge the matter. The relations between the two prelates were further embittered by the ordination of a deacon by Epiphanius in violation of the canons of the church (Socr. H. E. vi.11). No better success attended Epiphanius's attempt to obtain a condemnation of Origen from the bishops then at Constantinople. An interview with the accused monks, at which Epiphanius was obliged to acknowledge that he had not read a page of their writings, and had condemned them on hearsay, seems to have opened his eyes to the real character of Theophilus and the nature of the transaction in which he had become an agent. He refused to take any further share in the designs of Theophilus, and set sail for Cyprus, dying on his voyage or soon after his return (Socr. H. E. vi.12-14; Soz. H. E. viii.14, 15).

Shortly after Epiphanius's departure Theophilus arrived at Constantinople, accompanied by a bodyguard of rough sailors from his own city of Alexandria, laden with costly presents. He received a vociferous welcome from the crews of the Egyptian corn-ships, but the bishops and clergy of the city kept aloof. He refused all communications with Chrysostom, rejected all his offers of hospitality, and, assuming the position of an ecclesiastical superior, not of a defendant about to take his trial, openly declared that he had come to depose Chrysostom for grave offences. The three weeks between his arrival and the commencement of the synod were devoted to ingratiating himself with influential personages and the disaffected clergy, by flattery, sumptuous banquets, and splendid gifts. Arcadius, probably unaware of the plans of the secret cabal, remonstrated with Chrysostom for his delay in proceeding to Theophilus's trial, which Chrysostom justified by his unwillingness to usurp a jurisdiction not legitimately his (Socr. H. E. vi.15; Soz. H. E. viii.16; Pallad.65, 66; Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent.1). Theophilus had no such scruples. He assumed as patriarch of Alexandria the supremacy over all Eastern bishops, and claimed the right of summoning Chrysostom as a suffragan before his tribunal. Apprehensive of the well-known popularity of Chrysostom with the lower orders, he dared not venture to hold a synod in Constantinople. The place chosen was a suburb of Chalcedon, on the other side of the Bosphorus, known as |the Oak,| where was a large church with contiguous buildings for the clergy and monks. Thirty-six bishops, of whom all but seven were Egyptians, Theophilus's suffragans, formed the council. The Asiatic bishops were mainly such as Chrysostom had made his enemies during his recent visitation. None was more hostile than Gerontius of Nicomedia, whom he had deposed. The presidential chair was occupied by the bp. of Heraclea, as metropolitan. To this packed council, the members of which were at the same time |judges, accusers, and witnesses| (Phot. Cod.59, ad init.), in the middle of July, a.d.403, Chrysostom was summoned to answer to a list of charges containing 29 articles drawn up by the archdeacon John. Many of these were contemptibly frivolous, others grossly exaggerated, some entirely false (Pallad. p.66). They had reference to the administration of his church and the alleged malversation of its funds; to his violent and tyrannical behaviour towards his clergy; to his private habits -- |he had private interviews with women| -- |he dined gluttonously by himself as a cyclops would eat|; to ritual irregularities -- |he robed and unrobed himself on his episcopal throne, and ate a lozenge after celebration| (Pallad. p.66), and had violated the rule as to fasting communion; to his having ordained unworthy persons; and heretical deductions were drawn from some incautious and enthusiastic expressions in his sermons. A second list of charges under 18 heads was presented by Isaac the monk. In these the accusation of violence and inhospitality was renewed, and he was charged with invading the jurisdiction of other prelates (Phot. Cod.59; Chrys. Ep.125, ad Cyr.). The most flagrant charge was that of uttering treasonable words against the empress, comparing her to Jezebel (Pallad. p.74). This was construed into exciting the people to rebellion, and on this his enemies chiefly relied. The sessions lasted 14 days. Four times was Chrysostom summoned to appear before the self-appointed tribunal. His reply was dignified and unwavering. He refused to present himself before a packed synod of his enemies, to which he was summoned by his own clergy, and he appealed to a lawfully constituted general council. But irregular as the synod was, he expressed his readiness, in the interests of peace, to appear before it, if his avowed enemies, Theophilus, Severianus, Acacius, and Antiochus, were removed from the number of the judges. As this proposal met with no response, Chrysostom summoned a counter-synod of bishops attached to his cause, forty in number, whose letter of remonstrance to Theophilus was treated with contempt. At its twelfth sitting a message from the court urged the packed synod to come to a speedy decision. To this it yielded prompt obedience. By a unanimous vote it condemned Chrysostom as contumacious and deposed him from his bishopric. The charge of uttering treasonable words was left to the civil power, his enemies secretly hoping for a capital sentence (Socr. H. E. vi.15; Soz. H. E. viii.17). The imperial rescript confirming the sentence of deposition, however, simply condemned the bishop to banishment for life. The indignation of the people knew no bounds, when, as the evening wore on, the sentence on their beloved bishop became generally known. A crowd collected round Chrysostom's residence, and kept watch for 3 days and nights at its doors and those of the great church, lest he should be forcibly carried off. A word from him would have raised an insurrection. But the sermons he addressed to the vast multitudes in the cathedral advocated patience and resignation to the Divine Will. On the third day, during the noontide meal, he slipped out unperceived by a side door, and quietly surrendered himself to the imperial officers, by whom he was conducted after dark to the harbour and put on board a vessel which conveyed him to Hieron at the mouth of the Euxine. The victory of his enemies seemed complete. Theophilus entered the city in triumphal state and wreaked vengeance on the bishop's partisans. The people, who had crowded to the churches to pour forth their lamentations, were forcibly dislodged, not without bloodshed. Furious at the loss of their revered teacher, they thronged the approaches to the imperial palace, clamouring for his restoration and demanding that his cause should be heard before a general council. Constantinople was almost in revolt (Socr. H. E. vi.16; Soz. H. E. viii.18; Theod. H. E. v. c.34; Zosim. Hist. v.23; Pallad. p.15). The following night the city was convulsed by an earthquake, felt with peculiar violence in the bedroom of Eudoxia. The empress fell at Arcadius's feet, and entreated him to avert the wrath of Heaven by revoking Chrysostom's sentence. Messengers were dispatched to discover the exiled prelate, bearing letters couched in terms of the most abject humiliation. The news of Chrysostom's recall caused universal rejoicing. Late as it was, a whole fleet of barques put forth to meet him. The Bosphorus blazed with torches and resounded with songs of triumph (Theod. H. E. v.34). Chrysostom at first halted outside the city, claiming to be acquitted by a general council before resuming his see. The people suspected another plot, and loudly denounced the emperor and empress. Fearing a serious outbreak, Arcadius sent a secretary to desire Chrysostom to enter the walls without delay. As a loyal subject he obeyed. On passing the gates he was borne aloft by the crowd, carried into the church, placed on his episcopal seat, and forced to deliver an extemporaneous address. His triumph was now as complete as that of his enemies a few days before. Theophilus, and some of the leaders of the cabal, lingered on in Constantinople, hoping for a turn in the tide. But they were now the unpopular party, and could hardly shew themselves in the streets without being attacked and ill-treated. The person of Theophilus was no longer safe in Constantinople; while a more formidable danger was to be apprehended if the general council, which Chrysostom prevailed on the emperor to convoke, met and proceeded to inquire into his conduct. On the plea that his diocese could no longer put up with his absence, Theophilus abruptly left the city, and sailed by night for Alexandria (Socr. H. E. vi.17; Soz. H. E. viii.19; Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent.). His flight was speedily followed by the assembling of a council of about 60 bishops, which annulled the proceedings at the council of the Oak, and declared Chrysostom still legitimate bp. of Constantinople. This judicial sentence removed all Chrysostom's scruples, and he resumed his episcopal duties (Soz. H. E. viii. i9). The first result of the failure of the machinations of Chrysostom's enemies was an apparently complete reconciliation between him and the empress, who seemed entirely to have forgotten her former resentment. But, within two months, circumstances arose which proved the unreality of the friendship, and awakened a still more irreconcilable feud. Eudoxia aspired to semi-divine honours. A column of porphyry was erected in the lesser forum, in front of the church of St. Sophia, bearing aloft her silver statue for the adoration of the people. Its dedication in Sept.403 was accompanied by boisterous and licentious revelry. The noise of this unseemly merriment penetrated the church and disturbed the sacred services. Chrysostom's holy indignation took fire, and he mounted the ambo and thundered forth a homily, embracing in its fierce invective all who had any share in these profane amusements, above all, the arrogant woman whose ambition was the cause of them. |Herodias,| he was reported to Eudoxia to have exclaimed, |is once more maddening; Herodias is once more dancing; once more Herodias demands the head of John on a charger.| All her former fury revived, and she demanded of the emperor signal redress. Sacerdotal and imperial authority stood confronted. One or other must yield (Socr. H. E. vi.18; Soz. H. E. viii.20; Theophan. p.68; Zosim. v.24). The enemies of Chrysostom were not slow in reappearing. Acacius, Severian, Antiochus, with other members of the old cabal, hastened from their dioceses, and were soon in close conference with their former confederates among the fashionable dames and worldly and frivolous clergy of the city. After repeated deliberations they decided their policy. For months past Chrysostom had been wearying the emperor with demands for a general council. Let such a council be called, care being taken to select its members discreetly, and let this fresh outburst of treasonable language be laid before it, and the result could not be doubtful. Theophilus, too wary to appear again on the scene of his defeat, directed the machinations of the plotters. He put a new and powerful tool in their hands, in the 12th canon of the council of more than doubtful orthodoxy held at Antioch, a.d.341, pronouncing the ipso facto deprivation of any bishop who, after deposition, appealed to the secular arm for restoration. The council met towards the end of 403. On the succeeding Christmas Day the emperor refused to communicate, according to custom, in the cathedral, on the ground of the doubtful legality of Chrysostom's position (Socr., Soz. u.s.). This was justly regarded as ominous of Chrysostom's condemnation. Chrysostom, supported by 42 bishops, maintained his usual calm confidence. He continued to preach to his people, and his sermons were characterized by more than common vigour and unction (Pallad. p.81). The synod determined to submit the decision to the emperor. An adroit demand was made in Chrysostom's favour by Elpidius, the aged bp. of Laodicea, himself a confessor for the faith, that the chief promulgators of the canon of Antioch, Acacius and Antiochus, should subscribe a declaration that they were of the same faith as its original authors, who were mainly Arians. The emperor was amused, and at once agreed to the proposal. The two bishops caught in the trap became livid with rage (epi to pelidnoteron metabalontes ten porphen, Pallad. p.80), but were compelled to promise a compliance, which their astuteness had little difficulty in evading. The synod continued its protracted session. We have no record of any formal decision or sentence. None indeed was necessary; Chrysostom's violation of the Antiochene canon had deposed him: he was no longer bp. of Constantinople. Meanwhile Easter was fast approaching. It would be intolerable if the emperor were a second time shut out from his cathedral on a chief festival of the church. Chrysostom must be at once removed: if possible, quietly; if not, by force. Assured by Antiochus and his companions that Chrysostom had been actually condemned and had ceased to be a bishop, Arcadius was persuaded to order his removal (ib. p.81). An imperial officer was sent to desire the bishop to leave the church immediately. Chrysostom respectfully but firmly refused. |He had received the church from God, and he would not desert it. The emperor might expel him forcibly if he pleased. His violence would be his excuse before God for leaving his post.| When the time arrived for the great baptismal function on Easter Eve, when no fewer than 3,000 catechumens were expected, he calmly left his residence, despite the orders of the emperor, and proceeded to the cathedral. The imperial guards, forbidden to use force, dared not interfere. The perplexed emperor summoned Acacius and Antiochus, and reproached them for their advice. They replied that |Chrysostom, being no longer a bishop, was acting illegally in administering the sacraments, and that they would take his deposition on their own heads| (ib. p.82). The emperor, overjoyed at having the responsibility of the bishop's condemnation removed from himself, at once ordered some guards to drag Chrysostom from the cathedral as usurping functions no longer his, and reconduct him to his domestic prison. A vast crowd was assembled in the church of St. Sophia, to keep the vigil of the Resurrection. The sacrament of baptism was being administered to the long files of catechumens. Suddenly the din of arms broke the solemn stillness. A body of soldiers, sword in hand, burst in, and rushed, some to the baptisteries, some up the nave to the sacred bema and altar. The catechumens were driven from the font at the point of the sword. Many were wounded, and, as an eye-witness records, |the waters of regeneration were stained with blood| (ib. p.81). The baptisteries appropriated to the females were invaded by the rude, licentious soldiers, who drove the women, half-dressed, shrieking into the streets. Other soldiers forced open the holy doors, and the sanctuary was profaned by the presence of pagans, some of whom, it was whispered with horror, had dared to gaze on and even to handle the Eucharistic elements. The clergy, clad in their sacred robes, were forcibly ejected, and chased along the dark streets by the brutal soldiery. With holy courage the dispersed catechumens were reassembled by their clergy in the baths of Constantine, which, hastily blessed by the priests, became sacred baptisteries. The candidates were again approaching the laver of regeneration, when they were once more forcibly dispersed by the emissaries of Antiochus. The soldiers, rude barbarians from Thrace, executed their commission with indiscriminating ferocity. The ministering priest received a wound on the head; a blow on the arm caused the deacon to drop the cruet of sacred chrism. The women were plundered of their robes and ornaments; the clergy of their vestments, and the extemporized altar of its holy vessels. The fugitives were maltreated and beaten, and many dragged off to prison. The horrors of that night remained indelibly imprinted on the minds of those who witnessed them, and were spoken of long afterwards with shuddering. Similar scenes were enacted wherever the scattered congregations endeavoured to reunite. For the greater part of Easter week Constantinople was like a city that had been stormed. Private dwellings were invaded to discover clandestine assemblies. The partisans of Chrysostom -- the Joannites, as they began to be called -- were thrown into prison on the slightest suspicion, and scourged and tortured to compel them to implicate others (Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent. ap. Pallad. pp.17-20; Pallad. pp.82-88). For two months the timid Arcadius could not be prevailed upon to sign the decree for Chrysostom's banishment, and Chrysostom continued to reside in his palace, which was again guarded by successive detachments of his adherents. His life was twice attempted by assassins (Soz. H. E. viii.21).

(e) Exile. -- At last, on June 5, a.d.404, Arcadius was persuaded to sign the edict of banishment. Chrysostom, after a final prayer in the cathedral with some of his faithful bishops, prepared with calm submission to yield it prompt obedience. To guard against a popular outbreak, he directed that his horse should be saddled and taken to the great west entrance, and after a tender farewell of his beloved Olympias and her attendant deaconesses, he passed out unobserved at a small postern and surrendered himself to the guard, who conveyed him, with two bishops who refused to desert him, to a vessel which instantly started under cover of night for the Asiatic shore (Pallad. pp.89-90. He had scarcely left the city when the church he had just quitted took fire; the flames, which are said to have broken out first in the episcopal throne, caught the roof, and the conflagration spread to the senate house and adjacent public buildings (ib. pp.91-92; Socr. H. E. vi.18; Soz. H. E. viii.22; Zosim. v.24). The suspicion, however unjustly entertained, that this fire was due to Chrysostom's adherents, resolved that the church of their beloved teacher should never be possessed by his enemies, led to a relentless persecution of the Joannites under the semblance of a judicial investigation. Innocent persons of every age and sex were put to the torture, in the vain hope that they would inculpate leading members of their party. The presbyter Tigrius and the young reader Eutropius expired under their torturer's hands. Others barely escaped with their lives, maimed and mutilated (Soz. H. E. viii.22-24). The tender heart of Chrysostom was wrung upon hearing of the sufferings inflicted on his friends, especially upon his dearly loved Olympias. To the charge of incendiarism was added that of contumacious resistance to the emperor's will, in refusing to hold communion with Arsacius and Atticus, who in succession had been thrust into Chrysostom's see. [[110]Arsacius and Atticus] This was made a crime punishable with degradation from official rank, fine, and imprisonment. The clergy faithful to Chrysostom were deposed, and banished with every circumstance of brutality. Some did not reach their place of banishment alive. The most persevering endeavours were made to stamp out the adherents of the banished prelate, not only in Constantinople but in Asia Minor and Syria -- endeavours which only deepened their attachment to him, and confirmed their resolution never to yield (Theod. H. E. v.34).

All other help failing, the persecuted party appealed to the Western church as represented by its chief bishops. Letters were sent addressed to Innocent, bp. of Rome, Venerius of Milan, and Chromatius of Aquileia, by Chrysostom himself, by the 40 friendly bishops, and by the clergy of Constantinople (Pallad. p.10). Theophilus and his adherents sent
counter-representations (ib. p.9). Innocent, without hesitation, pronounced the synod that had condemned Chrysostom irregular, and annulled his deposition because pronounced in the absence of the accused, and wrote authoritative letters to the chief parties. To Theophilus he addressed sharp reproof, to the Constantinopolitan clergy fatherly sympathy, to Chrysostom himself sympathy and encouragement (ib. pp.23, 24; Soz. H. E. viii.26), and he persuaded Honorius to write a letter to his brother Arcadius, urging the convocation of a general synod. This letter was conveyed to Constantinople by a deputation of Western bishops. But Arcadius was not a free agent. The bishops were not allowed admission to his presence. The letters they bore were wrested from them, the thumb of one of the bishops being broken in the struggle. They were insulted, maltreated, and sent home with every mark of contumely (Pallad. pp.30-33; Soz. H. E. viii.28).

Chrysostom's place of exile, selected by Eudoxia's hatred, was Cucusus, a lonely mountain village in the Tauric range, on the borders of Cilicia and Lesser Armenia. It had a most inclement climate and was exposed to perpetual inroads from Isaurian marauders. Chrysostom first learnt at Nicaea the place of his future abode. His disappointment was severe, but remonstrance was vain. Refreshing breezes from lake Ascanius invigorated his worn constitution, and helped him to face the long and sultry journey. It was the season when the heat was most oppressive, and his conductors were instructed to push on with the utmost speed, without regard to his strength or comfort. Whatever kind consideration could do to mitigate his sufferings was done by the officers in charge, Anatolius and Theodorus, who gladly executed for him all the duties of personal servants. On July 5 Chrysostom left Nicaea to traverse the scorching plains of Galatia and Cappadocia under a midsummer sun. More dead than alive, he reached Caesarea. The bp. Pharetrius, an unworthy successor of the great Basil and a concealed enemy of Chrysostom (Pallad. p.77), was greatly troubled at a halt being fixed at Caesarea. His clergy were Joannites almost to a man: if he treated Chrysostom badly, he would offend them; if well, he would incur the more terrible wrath of the empress. So, while sending complimentary messages, he carefully avoided an interview, and used all means to dispatch him from Caesarea as quickly as possible. This was not so easy, for a severe access of his habitual ague-fever had compelled Chrysostom to seek medical aid (Ep.12). He was received with enthusiastic affection by all ranks in the city. His lodging was attacked by a body of fanatical monks, probably the tools of Pharetrius, who threatened to bum it over his head unless he instantly quitted it. Driven out by their fury, Chrysostom, suffering from a fresh attack of fever, found refuge in the country house of a wealthy lady near, named Seleucia. But the threats of Pharetrius prevailed on Seleucia to turn Chrysostom out of doors in the middle of the night, on the pretext that the barbarians were at hand, and that he must seek safety by flight. The dangers of that terrible night, when the fugitives' torches were extinguished for fear of the Isaurians and, his mule having fallen under the weight of his litter, he was taken up for dead and had to be dragged or rather carried along the precipitous mountain tracks, are graphically described in his letters to Olympias (Epp.12, 14). He reached Cucusus towards the end of August. His reception was of a nature to compensate for the fatigues of the way and to mitigate the trials of exile (Ep.14, § 1). He found agreeable occupation in writing and receiving letters, and in social intercourse with congenial friends. Never even as bp. of Constantinople did he exert a wider and more powerful influence. The East was almost governed from a mountain village of Armenia. His advice was sought from all quarters. No important ecclesiastical measure was undertaken without consulting him. In the words of Gibbon, |the three years spent at Cucusus were the most glorious of his life. From that solitude Chrysostom, whose active mind was invigorated by misfortunes, maintained a strict and frequent correspondence with the most distant provinces; exhorted the separate congregations of his faithful adherents to persevere in their allegiance; urged the destruction of the temples of Phoenicia, and the extirpation of heresy in the isle of Cyprus; extended his pastoral care to the missions of Persia and Scythia, and negotiated by his ambassadors with the Roman pontiff and the emperor Honorius.| His voluminous correspondence, which all belongs to this period, shews how close a connexion he kept up with the clergy and laity of his former diocese, and how unremitting was his oversight of the interests of his church (Soz. H. E. viii.27). His chief cause of suffering was the variable climate and the length and severity of the winter. In the winter of 405 the intelligence that the Isaurian brigands were intending a coup de main on Cucusus drove nearly the whole of the inhabitants from the town. Chrysostom joined the fugitives. The feeble old man with a few faithful companions, including the presbyter Evethius and the aged deaconess Sabiniana, wandered from place to place, often passing the night in forests or ravines, pursued by the terror of the Isaurians, until they reached the mountain fort of Arabissus, some 60 miles from Cucusus, in the castle of which place, |more a prison than a home,| he spent a winter of intense suffering, harassed by the fear of famine and pestilence, unable to procure his usual medicines, and deprived of the comfort of his friends' letters, the roads being blocked with snow and beset by the Isaurians who ravaged the whole district with fire and sword (Epp.15, 61, 69, 70, 127, 131). Once he narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the marauders, who made a nocturnal attack, and all but took the town (Ep.135). With the return of spring the Isaurians retired, and Chrysostom was able to descend to Cucusus early in 406. After Arabissus this desolate little town seemed a paradise. His greatest joy was in being nearer his friends and receiving their letters more regularly (Epp.126, 127, 128). A third winter brought its usual hardships, but Chrysostom was now somewhat acclimatized and endured them without a recurrence of illness (Epp.4, 142). His wonderful preservation from dangers hitherto, and the manner in which his feeble health, instead of sinking under the accumulated trials of his banishment, became invigorated, awoke sanguine anticipations, and he now confidently anticipated his return from banishment and his resumption of the care of his diocese (Epp.1, 2, 4). But this was not to be. The unhappy Eudoxia had preceded the victim of her hatred to the grave, but left other equally relentless enemies behind. Stung with disappointment that the rigours of Cucusus had failed to kill him, and that from his mountain banishment he exercised a daily growing influence, they obtained a rescript from Arcadius transferring him first to Arabissus (Pallad. p.96), and then to the small town of Pityus at the roots of Caucasus on the bleak N.E. shores of the Euxine. This was chosen as the most ungenial and inhospitable spot in the whole empire, and therefore the most certain to rid them quickly of his hated existence, even if, as proved to be the case, the long and toilsome journey had not previously quenched the feeble spark of life. This murderous purpose was plainly evidenced by the selection of two specially ferocious and brutal praetorian guards to convey him there, with instructions to push forward with the most merciless haste, regardless of weather or the health of their prisoner, a hint being privately given that they might expect promotion if he died on the road (ib. p.98). The journey was to be made on foot. Towns where he might enjoy any approach to comfort and have the refreshment of a warm bath were to be avoided. The necessary halts, as few and brief as possible, were to be at squalid villages or in the unsheltered country. All letters were forbidden, the least communication with passers-by punished with brutal blows. In spite of some approach to consideration on the part of one of his guards, the three months' journey between Cucusus and Comana must have been one long slow martyrdom to the fever-stricken old man. His body was almost calcined, by the sun, and, to adopt Palladius's forcible image, resembled a ripe apple ready to fall from the tree (ib. p.99). On reaching Comana it was evident that Chrysostom was entirely worn out. But his pitiless guard hurried him through the town without a moment's halt. Five or six miles outside stood a chapel over the tomb of the martyred bishop, Basiliscus. Here they halted for the night. In the morning Chrysostom begged for a brief respite in vain; but he had gone scarcely four miles when a violent attack of fever compelled them to return to the chapel. Chrysostom was supported to the altar, and, clothed in white baptismal robes, he distributed his own clothes to the bystanders, partook of the blessed Eucharist, prayed a last prayer |for present needs,| uttered his accustomed doxology, |Glory be to God for all things,| and having sealed it with an |Amen,| yielded up his soul to his Saviour, Sept.14, 407, in the 60th year of his age and 10th of his episcopate, 3 years and a quarter of which he had spent in exile. He was buried in the martyry by the side of Basiliscus (ib. pp.99-101). Thirty-one years afterwards (Jan.27, 438), when Theodosius II. was emperor, and Proclus, formerly a disciple of Chrysostom, was bp. of Constantinople, Chrysostom's body was taken from its grave near Comana and translated with great pomp to his own episcopal city, and deposited hard by the altar in the church of the Holy Apostles, the place of sepulture of the imperial family and of the bishops of Constantinople, the young emperor and his sister Pulcheria assisting at the ceremony, and asking the pardon of Heaven for the grievous wrong inflicted by their parents on the sainted bishop (Socr. H. E. vii.45; Theod. H. E. v.36; Evagr. H. E. iv.31).

The personal appearance of Chrysostom, as described by contemporary writers, though dignified, was not imposing. His stature was diminutive (somation); his limbs long, and so emaciated by early austerities and habitual self-denial that he compares himself to a spider (arachnodes, Ep.4). His very lofty forehead, furrowed with wrinkles, expanded widely at the summit, his head was bald |like that of Elisha,| his eyes deeply set, but keen and piercing; his cheeks pallid and withered; his chin pointed and covered with a short beard. His habits were of the simplest, his personal wants few and easily satisfied. The excessive austerities of his youth had ruined his digestive powers and he was unable to eat food except in the smallest quantities and of the plainest kind. Outward display in dress, equipage, or furniture was most distasteful to him. Enamoured of the cloister, the life of the bishop of the capital of the Eastern world, compelled by his position to associate with persons of the highest rank and magnificence of life, was intolerable. It is not surprising that he was thought morose and ungenial and was unpopular with the upper classes. His strength of will, manly independence, and dauntless courage were united with an inflexibility of purpose, a want of consideration for the weaknesses of others, and an impatience at their inability to accept his high standard, which rendered him harsh and unconciliatory. Intolerant of evil in himself, he had little tolerance for it in other men. His feebleness of stomach produced an irritability of temper, which sometimes led to violent outbursts of anger. He was accused of being arrogant and passionate. He was easily offended and too ready to credit evil of those whom he disliked. Not mixing with the world himself, he was too dependent on the reports of his friends, who, as in the case of Serapion, sometimes abused his confidence to their own purposes. But however austere and reserved to the worldly and luxurious, he was ever loving and genial to his chosen associates. In their company his natural playfulness and amiability was shewn, and perhaps few ever exercised a more powerful influence over the hearts and affections of the holiest and most exalted natures. His character is well summed up by Dr. Newman -- |a bright, cheerful, gentle soul,| his unrivalled charm |lying in his singleness of purpose, his fixed grasp of his aim, his noble earnestness; he was indeed a man to make both friends and enemies, to inspire affection and kindle resentment; but his friends loved him with a love 'stronger' than 'death,' and his enemies hated him with a hatred more burning than 'hell,' and it was well to be so hated, if he was so beloved.|

Chrysostom's extant works are more voluminous than those of any other Father, filling 13 folios in the Benedictine ed. They may be roughly divided into -- I. Treatises;? II. Expositions of Scripture, chiefly in the form of Homilies, but partly continuous Commentaries;? III. Homilies, (a) doctrinal, (b) occasional, (c) panegyrical, (d) general;? IV. Letters;? V. Liturgy.

I. Treatises. -- The earliest works we have from his pen are his letters ad Theodorum Lapsum, i. ii. (see supra), written while Chrysostom was still resident at Antioch before a.d.372. To his early monastic life we may assign the two books de Compunctione, addressed respectively to Demetrius and Stelechius. His three books in defence of the monastic life (adversus Oppugnatores Vitae Monasticae) were called forth by the decree of Valens enforcing military service and civil functions on monks, a.d.373. His short treatise, Comparatio Regis et Monachi, belongs to the same period. The three books de Providentiâ, written to console his friend Stagirius, the subject of an hysterical seizure then identified with demoniacal possession, were probably composed after his return to Antioch, i.e. subsequently to 381. Before ordination to the priesthood he composed two letters on the superior happiness of a single life (ad Viduam Juniorem) and his treatise on celibacy (de Virginitate). His six books de Sacerdotio, justly ranked among his ablest, most instructive, and most eloquent writings, are among his earliest, and placed by Socrates (H.E. vi.3) in the first days of his diaconate, c.382. Its maturity of thought and sobriety of tone prevent our fixing this work at a much earlier period. The treatises denouncing the custom for the clergy to have |spiritual sisters| residing under the same roof with them (contra eos qui subintroductas habent; Regulares foeminae viris cohabitare non. debent), incorrectly assigned by Socrates (ib.) to his diaconate, were written, Palladius tells us (p.45), after he became bp. of Constantinople, c.398. To his exile belong the Nemo laeditur nisi a seipso, and Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt ob adversitates.

II. Expositions of Scripture. -- It is as an expositor of Scripture that Chrysostom is most deservedly celebrated. His method of dealing with the divine Word is characterized by the sound grammatical and historical principles and the healthy common sense, introduced by his tutor Diodorus, which mark the exegetical school of Antioch. He seeks to discover not what the passage before him may be made to mean, but what it was intended to mean; not what recondite lessons or truths may be forced from it by mystical or allegorical interpretations, but what it was intended to convey; not what may be introduced into it, but what may be legitimately elicited from it. While regarding Scripture in the strictest sense as the word of God, no sentence of which must be neglected, he is far from ignoring the human element in it, holding that though its writers |spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,| they retained their personal individuality; that their natural powers were quickened and illuminated, not superseded by divine inspiration. He regards the Scriptures as a connected whole, and avoiding the erroneous plan of treating texts as isolated gnomes, he seeks always to view a passage in relation to its context, and to the general teaching of Scripture. His expository works, being chiefly homiletic, do not give any continuous or systematic exegesis of the text. His primary object was a practical one -- the conversion and edification of his hearers -- and he frequently disappoints those who, looking for the meaning of a difficult passage, find instead a vehement denunciation of some reigning vice or fashionable folly, or an earnest exhortation to cultivate some Christian grace or virtue (cf. Phot. Cod.174).

We are told by Suidas and Cassiodorus that Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the whole of Holy Scripture, from the beginning to the end. Among those extant are the 67 Homilies on Genesis, preached at Antioch; and 8 shorter and slighter, but more florid and rhetorical, sermons on topics from Gen. i. and ii., delivered earlier in the same year. The ninth of these sermons, de Mutatione Nominum, does not belong to the series. The only other homilies on the historical books of O.T. are five on the narrative of Hannah in I. Samuel, and three on David and Saul, assigned by Tillemont to a.d.387. He delivered homilies on the whole book of Psalms, of which we have only those on Ps. iii.-xii., xliii.-xlix., cviii.-cl. (inclusive), collected at an early period with great critical acumen. As early as Photius the gaps indicated already existed. There is a homily on the opening verses of Ps. xli., which belongs to a different series. On Isaiah a continuous commentary was composed by Chrysostom, but only the part on cc. i.-viii.11 is extant. There is a series of six homilies on the opening verses of c. vi., in Oziam seu de Seraphinis. The fourth of these belongs to a different series. To these we may add a homily on Is. xiv.7. The only extant commentary on any part of Jeremiah is one |on free will,| Jer. x.23. Chrysostom's general views on prophecy are given in two sermons de Prophetiarum Obscuritate, justly ranked by Montfaucon |inter nobilissimas.| The Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae is an imperfect work, ending with Nahum.

His commentaries on N.T. commence with 90 on Matthew, delivered at Antioch. St. Thomas Aquinas is reported to have said that he would rather possess these homilies than be the master of all Paris. There are none on Mark or Luke; but we have 88 on St. John's Gospel, also preached at Antioch. These are more doctrinal than hortatory or practical, being chiefly against the Anomoeans. The 55 homilies on Acts are among his feeblest works. The style is inelegant, the language unrefined, and the line of interpretation jejune. (Phot. Cod.174). The secret of their inferiority is that they were written at Constantinople in the midst of the troubles arising from Gainas and the Goths, when he had no time for studied composition; as also were the 24 homilies on Eph., the 15 on Phil., the 12 on Col., the 11 on I. Thess., and the 5 on II. Thess., which hardly reach Chrysostom's highest standard of excellence. On the other hand, the 33 on Rom., which were certainly delivered at Antioch, are among his most elaborate discourses. Nowhere does he shew more argumentative power or greater skill in developing his author's meaning. On I. Cor. we have 44 homilies, and 30 on II. Cor., preached at Antioch, of which the former series |have ever been considered by devout men as among the most perfect specimens of his mind and teaching| (Keble). The commentary on Gal. is continuous, not in the homiletical form, and a somewhat hasty work. Montfaucon correctly assigns the 18 homilies on I. Tim., the 10 on II. Tim., and the 6 on Tit. to his ministry at Antioch. From some marks of negligence the three on Philemon have been thought to be extemporaneous addresses taken down by others. The 34 on Hebrews were delivered at Constantinople, and pub. from notes by Constantine, a presbyter, after Chrysostom's death.

III. Homilies, (a) Doctrinal. -- The chief of these are the 12 delivered against the Anomoean form of Arianism, in the first year of his presbyterate, at Antioch, a.d.387. |They are,| writes Stephens, |among the finest of his productions.| Soon after he wrote the 8 against the Jews and Judaizing Christians (contra Judaeos).

(b) Occasional. -- Not a few of his grandest flights of Christian oratory were called forth by the events of the stirring times in which he lived. The most remarkable is the series of 21 |on the Statues| (ad Populum Antiochenum de Statuis), for the circumstances of which see supra. Another class includes orations delivered at Constantinople on the fall of Eutropius, on the insurrection of Gainas, on the troubles connected with Severian, and the noble and pathetic series connected with his own deposition and exile. To these we may add homilies delivered on the great Church festivals.

(c) Panegyrical. -- These deserve careful attention as illustrating |the passionate devotion to the memory of departed saints which was rapidly passing into actual adoration.| The earliest is probably that commemorating his venerated spiritual father Meletius, a.d.386. The others are mostly devoted to the eulogy of the bishops and martyrs of the church of Antioch, St. Ignatius, St. Eustathius, St. Babylas, St. Pelagia, St. Domnina and her two daughters, and others, and were delivered at the martyria, or chapels erected over their remains. Chrysostom delivered a homily on the day of the commemoration of the emperor Theodosius, and heaped extravagant laudations on the empress Eudoxia and on Arcadius during his ardent but short-lived friendship with them at the outset of his episcopate.

(d) General. -- Among these we include those belonging to the Christian life generally, e.g. the 9 de Poenitentia, 2 Catecheses ad Illuminandos, those de Continentia, de Perfecta Caritate, de Consolatione Mortis, and numerous ones on single texts or separate parables.

On his homilies, expository and practical, Chrysostom's fame chiefly rests, and that deservedly. He was in truth |the model of a preacher for a great capital. Clear, rather than profound, his dogmatic is essentially moulded up with his moral teaching. . . . His doctrines flow naturally from his subject or from the passage of Scripture under discussion; his illustrations are copious and happy; his style free and fluent; while he is an unrivalled master in that rapid and forcible application of incidental occurrences which gives such life and reality to eloquence. He is at times, in the highest sense, dramatic in manner| (Milman, Hist. of Christ. iii.9).

IV. Letters. -- The whole of Chrysostom's extant letters belong to his banishment, written on his road to Cucusus, during his residence there, or in the fortress of Arabissus. The most important are 17 addressed to the deaconess Olympias, who shared his hopes and fears and all his inmost feelings. The whole number is 242, written to every variety of friend -- men of rank, ladies, ecclesiastics of every grade, bishops, presbyters, deacons and deaconesses, monks and missionaries, his old friends at Antioch and Constantinople, and his more recent acquaintances at Caesarea and other halting-places on his journey -- and including every variety of subject; now addressing reproof, warning, encouragement, or consolation to the members of his flock at Constantinople, or their clergy; now vigorously helping forward the missionary work in Phoenicia, and soliciting funds for pious and beneficent works; now thanking his correspondents for their letters or their gifts; now complaining of their silence; now urging the prosecution of the appeal made in his behalf to Innocent and the Western bishops, and expressing his hope that through the prayers of his friends he would be speedily given to them again; and the whole poured forth with the undoubting confidence of a friend writing to friends of whom he is sure. We have in this correspondence an index to his inner life such as we possess of few great men. The letters are simply inestimable in aiding us to understand and appreciate this great saint. In style, as Photius remarks, they are characterized by his usual brilliancy and clearness, and by great sweetness and persuasive power (Phot. Cod.86).

V. Liturgical. -- It is impossible to decide how much in the liturgies passing under the name of St. Chrysostom is really of his age. There are very many editions of the liturgy, no two of which, according to Cave (Hist. Lit. i.305), present the same text; and hardly any that do not offer great discrepancies. It would be, of course, a fundamental error to attribute the composition of a liturgy de novo to Chrysostom or any of the old Catholic Fathers. When a liturgy is called by the name of any Father, all that is implied is that it was in use in the church to which that Father belonged, and that it may have owed some corrections and improvements to him. The liturgy known in comparatively late times by the name of Chrysostom has been from time immemorial that of the church of Constantinople.

The best and most complete edition of Chrysostom, as of most of the Christian Fathers, is the Benedictine, prepared by the celebrated Bernard de Montfaucon, who devoted to it more than twenty years of incessant toil and of journeys to consult MSS. It was pub. at Paris, in 13 vols. fol. in 1718. The value of this magnificent edition lies more in the historical and critical prefaces, and other literary apparatus, than in the text, which is faulty. It has been reprinted at Venice in 1734 and 1755, and at Paris in 1834-1839. The most practically useful edition is in the Patrologia of the Abbé Migne, in 13 vols.8vo. (Paris, 1863). It is mainly a reprint of the Benedictine ed., but enriched by a judicious use of the best modern commentators. The chief early authorities for the life of Chrysostom, besides his own works, are the Dialogue of his contemporary Palladius, bp. of Hellenopolis, which, however valuable for its facts, deserves Gibbon's censure as |a partial and passionate vindication,| and the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates (lib. vi.), Sozomen (lib. viii.), and Theodoret (lib. v.), the Lexicon of Suidas (sub voc. Ioannes), and the letters of Isidorus of Pelusium (ii. Ep.42). The biography by George of Alexandria is utterly worthless, being more an historical romance than a memoir. Of more modern works, it will suffice to name |the moderate Erasmus| (tom. iii. Ep.1150), the |patient and accurate| Tillemont (Mém. Eccl. tom. ix.), and the diligent and dull Montfaucon. The brilliant sketch of Gibbon (Decl. and Fall, c. xxxii.) must not be omitted. Neander's Life of St. Chrysostom is a work of much value, more for the account of Chrysostom's opinions and words than for the actual life. Amadée Thierry's biographical articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes describe Chrysostom's fall and exile most graphically, though with the licence of an artist. The most satisfactory biography is by Rev. W. R. W. Stephens (Lond.1872), to which the foregoing article is largely indebted. Translations of several of his works are contained in the Post-Nicene Fathers, edited by Schaff and Wace. S.P.C.K. publishes cheaply St. Chrys. On the Priesthood, by T. A. Moxon, and extracts from his writing in St. Chrysostom's Picture of his Age and Picture of the Religion of his Age.

[E.V.]

Claudius (1), emperor
Claudius (1), a.d.41-54. The reign of this emperor has special interest in being that to which we must refer the earliest distinct traces of the origines of the church of Rome. Even before his accession, the new faith may have found its way there. The |strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes | (Acts ii.10), who were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, or some of the |synagogue of the Libertines| (Acts vi.9), yielding to the arguments of Stephen, may have brought it thither. |Andronicus and Junia or Junias,| who were |in Christ| before the conversion of St. Paul (Rom. xvi.7), and at Rome when that apostle wrote to the church there, may have been among those earlier converts. When Herod Antipas and Herodias came to court the favour of Caligula (Joseph. Antiq. xviii.7) and gain for the former the title of king, they must have had some in their train who had known -- perhaps those who had reported to him (Matt. xiv.1, 2) -- the |mighty works| of the prophet of Nazareth. The frequent visits of Herod Agrippa would make events in Judaea common topics at Rome. His presence there when Claudius came to the throne (Joseph. Antiq. xix.4, 5) may reasonably be connected with the indulgence then extended to the Jews by that emperor (ib. xix.5). The decree mentioned in Acts xviii.2, and by Suetonius (Claudius, c.25), indicates a change of policy, and the account of Suetonius probably tells the cause of the change, |Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Româ expulit.| He does not give the date of the expulsion, but it was probably between a.d.43, when Agrippa left Rome, and a.d.51, when St. Paul arrived at Corinth, and when the decree is mentioned as recent. The explanation turns upon the interpretation of the words |impulsore Chresto.| We know from Tertullian (Apol. c.3) that |Christianus| was commonly pronounced |Chrestianus| by those ignorant of its derivation; and that the name of Christ was for long similarly mispronounced we learn from Lactantius (|immutatâ literâ Chrestum solent dicere,| Ver. Sap. iv.7). It seems legitimate, therefore, to assume that the name |Christ| had been heard in the disputings of Jews and Christians, and that the prefects and Roman population, ignorant of its true significance, conceived it to be the name of some local ringleader in a seditious riot. Many indications in Acts and Romans imply a considerable growth of the Christian community before the accession of Nero.

It is obvious further, (1) that the expulsion of Christians who had been Jews or proselytes would leave a certain proportion of purely Gentile Christians whom the edict would not touch; and (2) that those who returned would naturally settle, not in the Jewish trans-Tiberine quarter of the city, but in some safer locality, and that thus the church at Rome, at or soon after the death of Claudius, would gradually become more and more free from Jewish or Judaizing influences. (On other points connected with the rise and progress of Christianity at Rome under Claudius see |Aquila and Priscilla,| and the |Proto-martyr Stephen,| in the writer's Biblical Studies.)

[E.H.P.]

Clemens (1), Flavius, first cousin of Domitian
Clemens (1), Flavius, son of Sabinus, brother of the emperor Vespasian, and therefore first cousin to Domitian, whose niece Flavia Domitilla was his wife. Domitian regarded his kinsman with great favour, and placed his two sons, whom he caused to be named after himself and his brother, Vespasianus and Domitianus, under the tuition of Quintilian as his destined successors. Flavius Clemens was consul in a.d.95, and had only just resigned the office when he and his wife Domitilla were suddenly arrested and convicted on the charge of |atheism,| by which there is no reasonable doubt that Christianity is intended. The crime on which they were condemned was, according to Dio Cassius, that of |Judaizing,| from which in the popular mind Christianity was hardly distinguishable. The religious charge was regarded by Suetonius as a most trivial one, the object of suspicion rather than of proof -- |tenuissima ex suspicione| -- but it was strengthened by a neglect of the ordinary usages of Roman social and political life, almost unavoidable by a Christian, which was regarded as a |most contemptible indolence| meriting severe animadversion. Clemens suffered death; his wife Domitilla was banished to an island off the W. coast of Italy. [[112]Domitianus, (1).] Sueton. Domit. § 15; Dio Cassius, Hist. lxvii.14; Tillem. tom. ii. p.124; Merivale, Romans under the Empire, vol. vii. c. lxii. p.383; Lightfoot, Philippians, p.22.

[E.V..]

Clemens Romanus, bishop of Rome
Clemens Romanus. According to common tradition, one of the first, if not the first, bp. of Rome after the apostles, and certainly a leading member of that church towards the end of the 1st cent.

(1) Among the most authentic proofs of the connexion of Clement with the Roman church is the mention of his name in its liturgy. The early Christians on the death of a bishop did not discontinue the mention of his name in their public prayers. Now the Roman Canon of the Mass to this day, next after the names of the apostles, recites the names of Linus, Cletus, Clemens; and there is some evidence that the liturgy contained the same names in the same order as early as the 2nd cent; Probably, then, this commemoration dates from Clement's own time.

(2) An independent proof that Clement held high position in the church of Rome is afforded by the Shepherd of Hermas, a work not later than the episcopate of Pius (a.d.141-156), the writer of which claims to have been contemporary with Clement. He represents himself as commissioned to write for Clement the book of his Visions in order that Clement might send it to foreign cities, that being his function; while Hermas himself was to read the Vision at Rome with the elders who presided over the church. Thus Clement is recognized as the organ by which the church of Rome communicated with foreign churches; but the passage does not decide whether or not Clement was superior to other presbyters in the domestic government of the church.

(3) Next in antiquity among the notices of Clement is the general ascription to him of the Epistle to the Church of Corinth, commonly known as Clement's first epistle. This is written in the name of the church of Rome, and neither in the address nor in the body of the letter contains Clement's name, yet he seems to have been from the first everywhere recognized as its author. We may not unreasonably infer from the passage just cited from Hermas that the letter was even then celebrated. About a.d.170 it is expressly mentioned by Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, who, acknowledging another letter written from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth by their then bp. Soter, states that their former letter written by Clement was still read from time to time in their Sunday assemblies. Eusebius (H. E. iii.16) speaks of this public reading of Clement's epistle as the ancient custom of very many churches down to his own time. In the same place (and in H. E. iv.22) he reports that Hegesippus, whose historical work was written in the episcopate next after Soter's, and who had previously visited both Rome and Corinth, gives particulars concerning the epistle of Clement, and concerning the dissensions in the Corinthian church which had given rise to it. The epistle is cited as Clement's by Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii.3), several times by Clement of Alex., who in one place gives his namesake the title of Apostle (Strom. i.7, iv.17, v.12, vi.8); by Origen (de Princip. ii.3, in Ezech.8, in Joan. i.29); and in fact on this subject the testimony of antiquity is unanimous. A letter which did not bear Clement's name, and which merely purported to come from the church of Rome, could scarcely have been generally known as Clement's, if Clement had not been known at the time as holding the chief position in the church of Rome.

(4) Last among those notices of Clement which may be relied on as historical, we place the statement of Irenaeus (l.c.) that Clement was third bp. of Rome after the apostles, his account being that the apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up that church, committed the charge of it to Linus; that Linus was succeeded by Anencletus, and he by Clement. This order is adopted by Eusebius, by Jerome in his Chronicle, and by Eastern chronologers generally.

A different order of placing these bishops can also, however, lay claim to high antiquity. The ancient catalogue known as the Liberian, because ending with the episcopate of Liberius, gives the order, and duration of the first Roman episcopates: Peter 25 years, 1 month, 9 days; Linus 12 years, 4 months, 12 days; Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days; Cletus 6 years, 2 months, 10 days; Anacletus 12 years, 10 months, 3 days: thus Anacletus, who in the earlier list comes before Clement, is replaced by two bishops, Cletus and Anacletus, who come after him; and this account is repeated in other derived catalogues. Irenaeus himself is not consistent in reckoning the Roman bishops. [[113]Cerdo.] The order, Peter, Linus, Clemens, is adopted by Augustine (Ep.53 ad Generosum) and by Optatus of Milevis (de Schism. Donatist. ii.2). Tertullian (de Praescrip. c.32) states that the church of Rome held Clement to have been ordained by Peter; and Jerome (Cat. Scr. Ecc.15), while adopting the order of Irenaeus, mentions that most Latins then counted Clement to have been second after Peter, and himself seems to adopt this reckoning in his commentary on Isaiah (c.52). The Apostolic Constitutions (vii.46) represent Linus to have been first ordained by Paul, and afterwards, on the death of Linus, Clement by Peter. Epiphanius (Haer. xxvii.6) suggests that Linus and Cletus held office during the lifetime of Peter and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from Rome for apostolic journeys, commended the charge of the church to others. This solution is adopted by Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the Recognitions. Epiphanius has an alternative solution, founded on a conjecture which he tries to support by a reference to a passage in Clement's epistle, viz. that Clement, after having been ordained by Peter, withdrew from his office and did not resume it until after the death of Linus and Cletus. A more modern attempt to reconcile these accounts is Cave's hypothesis that Linus and after him Cletus had been appointed by Paul to preside over a Roman church of Gentile Christians; Clement by Peter over a church of Jewish believers, and that ultimately Clement was bishop over the whole Roman church. Still later it has been argued that the uncertainty of order may mean that during the 1st cent. there was no bishop in the church of Rome, and that the names of three of the leading presbyters have been handed down by some in one order, by others in another. The authorities, however, which differ from the account of Irenaeus, ultimately reduce themselves to two. Perhaps the parent of the rest is the letter of Clement to James [[114]Clementine Literature] giving an account of Clement's ordination by Peter; for it seems to have been plainly the acceptance of this ordination as historical which inspired the desire to correct a list of bishops which placed Clement at a distance of three from Peter. The other authority is the Chronicle of Hippolytus, pub. a.d.235 (see Chronicon Canisianum in D. C. B.4-vol. ed., and the memoir of Mommsen there cited), for it has been satisfactorily shewn that the earlier part of the Liberian catalogue is derived from the list of Roman bishops in this work. The confusion of later writers arises from attempts to reconcile conflicting authorities, all of which seemed deserving of confidence: viz. (1) the list of Irenaeus, and probably of Hegesippus, giving merely a succession of Roman bishops; (2) the list of Hippolytus giving a succession in somewhat different order and also the years of the duration of the episcopates; and (3) the letter to James relating the ordination of Clement by Peter. The main question, then, is, which is more entitled to confidence, the order of Irenaeus or of Hippolytus? and we have no hesitation in accepting the former. First, because it is distinctly the more ancient; secondly, because if the earlier tradition had not placed the undistinguished name Cletus before the well-known Clement, no later writer would have reversed its order; thirdly, because of the testimony of the liturgy. Hippolytus being apparently the first scientific chronologer in the Roman church, his authority there naturally ranked very high, and his order of the succession seems to have been generally accepted in the West for a considerable time. Any commemoration, therefore, introduced into the liturgy after his time would have followed his order, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, or, if of very late introduction, would have left out the obscure name Cletus altogether. We conclude, then, that the commemoration in the order, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, had been introduced before the time of Hippolytus, and was by then so firmly established that even the contradictory result arrived at by Hippolytus (because he accepted as historically true the ordination of Clement by Peter as related in the Ep. to James) could not alter it. The Recognitions are cited by Origen, the contemporary of Hippolytus; and the account which their preface gives of Clement's ordination seems to have been fully believed by the Roman church. The death of Clement and the consequent accession of Evaristus is dated by Eusebius in his Chronicle a.d.95, and in his Church History the third year of Trajan, a.d.100. According to the chronology of the Liberian Catalogue, the accession of Evaristus is dated a.d.95. Now no one dates the death of Peter later than the persecution of Nero, a.d.67. If, therefore, Clement was ordained by Peter, and if we retain the order of Irenaeus, Clement had an episcopate of about 30 years, a length far greater than any tradition suggests. Hippolytus, probably following the then received account of the length of Clement's episcopate, has placed it a.d.67-76; and, seeing the above difficulty, has filled the space between Clement and Evaristus by transposing Cletus and, as the gap seemed too large to be filled by one episcopate, by counting as distinct the Cletus of the liturgy and the Anacletus of the earlier catalogue. Apparently it was Hippolytus who devised the theory stated in the Apostolic Constitutions, that Linus held the bishopric during the lifetime of Peter; for this seems to be the interpretation of the dates assigned in the Liberian Catalogue, Peter 30-55, Linus 55-67. But the whole ground of these speculations is removed if we reject the tale of Clement's ordination by Peter; if for no other reason, on account of the chronological confusion which it causes. Thus we retain the order of Irenaeus, accounting that of Hippolytus as an arbitrary transposition to meet a chronological difficulty. The time that we are thus led to assign to the activity of Clement, viz. the end of Domitian's reign, coincides with that which Eusebius, apparently on the authority of Hegesippus, assigns to Clement's epistle, and with that which an examination of the letter itself suggests (see below).

The result thus arrived at casts great doubt on the identification of the Roman Clement with the Clement named Phil. iv.3. This identification is unhesitatingly made by Origen (in Joann. i.29) and a host of later writers. Irenaeus also may have had this passage in mind when he speaks of Clement as a hearer of the apostles, though probably he was principally influenced by the work which afterwards grew into the Recognitions. But though it is not actually impossible that the Clement who held a leading position in the church of Philippi during Paul's imprisonment might thirty years afterwards have presided over the church of Rome, yet the difference of time and place deprives of all likelihood an identification merely based upon a very common name. Lightfoot has remarked that Tacitus, for instance, mentions five Clements (Ann. i.23, ii.39, xv.73; Hist. i.86, iv.68). Far more plausibly it has been proposed to identify the author of the epistle with another Clement, who was almost certainly at the time a distinguished member of the Roman church. We learn from Suetonius (Domit.15) and from Dio Cassius, lxvii.14, that in 95, the very year fixed by some for the death of bp. Clement, death or banishment was inflicted by Domitian on several persons addicted to Jewish customs, and amongst them Flavius Clemens, a relation of his own, whose consulship had but just expired, was put to death on a charge of atheism, while his wife Domitilla, also a member of the emperor's family, was banished. The language is such as heathen writers might naturally use to describe a persecution of Christians; but Eusebius (H. E. iii.13) expressly claims one Domitilla, a niece of the consul's, as a sufferer for Christ; and (Chron. sub anno 95) cites the heathen historian Bruttius as stating that several Christians suffered martyrdom at this time. If, then, the consul Clement was a Christian martyr, his rank would give him during his life a foremost position in the Roman church. It is natural to think that the writer of the epistle may have been either the consul or a member of his family. Yet if so, the traditions of the Roman church must have been singularly defective. No writer before Rufinus speaks of bp. Clement as a martyr; nor does any ancient writer in any way connect him with the consul. In the Recognitions Clement is represented as a relation of the emperor; not, however, of Domitian, but of Tiberius. A fabulous account of Clement's martyrdom, probably of no earlier origin than the 9th cent., tells how Clement was first banished to the Crimea, worked there such miracles as converted the whole district, and was thereupon by Trajan's order cast into the sea with an anchor round his neck, an event followed by new prodigies.

The only genuine work of Clement is the Ep. to the Corinthians already mentioned. Its main object is to restore harmony to the Corinthian church, which had been disturbed by questions apparently concerning discipline rather than doctrine. The bulk of the letter is taken up in enforcing the duties of meekness, humility, submission to lawful authority, and but little attempt is made at the refutation of doctrinal error. Some pains, it is true, are taken to establish the doctrine of the Resurrection; but this subject is not connected by the writer with the disputes, and so much use is made of Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians that we cannot lay much stress on the fact that one of the topics of that epistle is fully treated. The dissensions are said to have been caused by the arrogance of a few self-willed persons who led a revolt against the authority of the presbyters. Their pride probably rested on their possession of spiritual gifts, and perhaps on the chastity which they practised. Though pains are taken to shew the necessity of a distinction of orders, we cannot infer that this was really questioned by the revolters; for the charge against them, that they had unwarrantably deposed from the office of presbyter certain who had filled it blamelessly, implies that the office continued to be recognized by them. But this unauthorized deposition naturally led to a schism, and representations made at Rome by some of the persons ill-treated may have led to the letter of Clement. It is just possible that we can name one of these persons. At the end of the letter a wish is expressed that the messengers of the Roman church, Ephebus and Bito, with Fortunatus also, might be sent back speedily with tidings of restored harmony. The form of expression distinguishing Fortunatus from the Roman delegates favours the supposition that he was a Corinthian, and as Clement urges on those who had been the cause of dissension to withdraw for peace' sake, it is possible that Fortunatus might have so withdrawn and found a welcome at Rome. Another conjecture identifies him with the Fortunatus mentioned in St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians.

However precarious this identification may be, internal evidence shews that the epistle is not so far from apostolic times as to make it impossible. None of the apostles are spoken of as living, but the deaths of Peter and Paul, described as men of their own generation, are referred to as then recent, and some of the presbyters appointed by the apostles are spoken of as still surviving. The early date thus indicated is confirmed by the absence of allusion to controversial topics of the 2nd cent., and by the immaturity of doctrinal development on certain points. Thus |bishop| and |presbyter| are, as in N.T., used convertibly, and there is no trace that in the church of Corinth one presbyter had any very pronounced authority over the rest. The deposition of certain presbyters is not spoken of as usurpation of the authority of any single person, but of that of the whole body of presbyters. Again, to the writer the |Scriptures| are the books of the O.T.; these he cites most copiously and uses to enforce his arguments. He expressly mentions St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians; and twice reminds his hearers of words of our Lord. The way in which he uses the quotations implies the existence of written records recognized by both parties. Besides these, without any formal citation he makes unmistakable use of other N.T. books, chiefly of Heb., but also of Rom. and other Pauline, including the Pastoral epistles, Acts, James, and I. Peter. Still, their authority is not appealed to in the same manner as is that of the O.T. It may be mentioned here that Clement's epistle contains the earliest recognition of the Book of Judith. He quotes also from O.T. apocryphal books or interpolations not now extant.

To fix more closely the date of the epistle, the principal fact available is, that in the opening an apology is made that the church of Rome had not been able to give earlier attention to the Corinthian disputes, owing to the sudden and repeated calamities which had befallen it. It is generally agreed that this must refer to the persecution under either Nero or Domitian. A date about midway between these is that to which the phenomena of the epistle would have inclined us; but having to choose between these two we have no hesitation in preferring the latter. The main argument in favour of the earlier date, that the temple service is spoken of as being still offered, is satisfactorily met by the occurrence of a quite similar use of the present tense in Josephus. Indeed the passage, carefully considered, suggests the opposite inference; for Clement would Judaize to an extent of which there is no sign elsewhere in the epistle, if, in case the temple rites were being still celebrated, he were to speak of them as the appointed and acceptable way of serving God. All the other notes of time are difficult to reconcile with a date so close to the apostles as the reign of Nero.

As to whether the writer was a Jew or a Gentile, the arguments are not absolutely decisive; but it seems more conceivable that a Hellenistic Jew resident at Rome could have acquired the knowledge of Roman history and heathen literature exhibited in the epistle, than that one not familiar from his childhood with the O.T. could possess so intimate an acquaintance with it. This consideration, of course, bears on the question whether Flavius Clemens could have written the letter.

The letter does not yield any support to the theory of 1st cent. disputes between a Pauline and an anti-Pauline party in the church. No such disputes appear in the dissensions at Corinth; and at Rome the Gentile and Jewish sections of the church seem in Clement's time to be completely fused. The obligation on Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law does not seem a matter of concern. The whole Christian community is regarded as the inheritor of the promises to the Jewish people. Clement holds both SS. Peter and Paul in the highest (and equal) honour.

The epistle was known until 1875 only through a single MS., the great Alexandrian MS. brought to England in 1628, of which an account is given in all works on the criticism of the N.T. One leaf, containing about the tenth part of the whole letter, has been lost. In this Greek Bible of the 5th cent. the two letters of Clement to the Corinthians are books enumerated among N.T., not with the apostolic epistles, but after the Apocalypse. Hence the ecclesiastical use of Clement's letter had probably not ceased when this MS. was copied. The ep. was first ed. by Patrick Young (Oxf.1633), and often since, among the most important edd. being Cotelier's in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 1672); Jacobson's; Hilgenfeld's in his N.T. extra Canonem Receptum; Lightfoot's (Camb.1869, and in his great ed. of the Apostolic Fathers, 1890); Tischendorf's (Leipz.1873); and Gebhardt and Harnack's (Leipz.1875). A photograph of this portion of the MS. was pub. by Sir. F. Madden in 1856. An Eng. trans. of the ep. (and of those on Virginity) is in the Lib. of Ante-Nicene Fathers.

An entirely new authority for the text of the epistle was gained by the discovery in the library of the Holy Sepulchre at Fanari, in Constantinople, of a MS. containing an unmutilated text of the two epistles ascribed to Clement. The new authority was announced, and first used in establishing the text, in a very careful and able ed. of the epp. by Bryennius, metropolitan of Serrae, pub. in Constantinople at the end of 1875. The MS., which is cursive and dated a.d.1056, is contained in a small octavo volume, 7 ½ inches by 6, which has, besides the Epp. of Clement, Chrysostom's synopsis of the O.T., the Ep. of Barnabas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (occupying in the MS. less space by one fourth than the second Ep. of Cement), and a collection of Ignatian epistles. It gives a very good text of the Clementine letters, independent of the Alexandrian MS., but, on the whole, in tolerably close agreement with it, even in passages where the best critics had suspected error. Besides filling up small lacunae in the text of the older MS., it supplies the contents of the entire leaf which had been lost. This part contains a passage quoted by Basil, but not another quoted by Pseudo-Justin, confirmed in some degree by Irenaeus, which had been referred to this place (see Lightfoot, p.166). Except for trifling omissions we must have the letter now as complete as it was originally in the Alexandrian MS. For Harnack; on counting the letters in the recovered portion, found that they amounted almost exactly to the average contents of a leaf of the older MS. Lightfoot has pointed out that by a small change in the text of Ps.-Justin, his reference is satisfied by a passage in the newly discovered conclusion of the second epistle. The new portion of the first principally consists of a prayer, possibly founded on the liturgical use of the Roman church. What has been said in the beginning of the letter as to the calamities under which that church had suffered is illustrated by some of the petitions, and prayer is made for their earthly rulers and that they themselves might submit to them, recognizing the honour given them by God, and not opposing His will. Very noticeable in this new part of the letter is the tone of authority used in making an unsolicited interference with the affairs of another church. |If any disobey the words spoken by God through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in transgression, and no small danger, but we shall be clear from this sin.| |You will cause us joy and exultation if, obeying the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, you cut out the lawless passion of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and concord in this letter. But we have sent faithful and discreet men who have walked from youth to old age unblameably amongst us, who shall be witnesses between us and you. This have we done that you may know that all our care has been and is that you may speedily be at peace.| It remains open for controversy how far the expressions quoted indicate official superiority of the Roman church, or only the writer's conviction of the goodness of their cause. We may add that the epithet applied by Irenaeus to the epistle hikanotate proves to have been suggested by a phrase in the letter itself, hikanos epesteilamen.

Lightfoot gives references to a succession of writers who have quoted the epistle. Polycarp, though not formally quoting Clement's epistle, gives in several passages clear proof of acquaintance with it. A passage in Ignatius's epistle to Polycarp, c.5, may also be set down as derived from Clement, but other parallels collected by Hilgenfeld are extremely doubtful. The epistle does not seem to have been translated into Latin, and was consequently little known in the West.

For some of the spurious works ascribed to Clement see Clementine Literature.

The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. -- This letter also formed part of the Alexandrian MS., but its conclusion had been lost by mutilation. We now have it complete in the edition of Bryennius. In the list of contents of the older MS. it is marked as Clement's second epistle, but not expressly described as to the Corinthians. It is so described in the later MS. It is not mentioned by any writer before Eusebius, and the language used by some of them is inconsistent with their having accepted it. Eusebius mentions it as a second letter ascribed to Clement, but not, like the former, used by the older writers, and he only speaks of one as the acknowledged epistle of Clement. The two epistles are placed among the books of the N.T., in the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which probably belongs to the 6th cent. The second epistle is first expressly cited as to the Corinthians by Severus of Antioch early in the same cent. Internal evidence, though adverse to Clementine authorship, assigns to the work a date not later than the 2nd cent., and probably the first half of it. The writer is distinctly a Gentile, and contrasts himself and his readers with the Jewish nation in a manner quite unlike the genuine Clement; and his quotations are not, like Clement's, almost exclusively from O.T.; the gospel history is largely cited, and once under the name of Scripture. Many of the quotations, however, differ from our canonical gospels, and since one of them agrees with a passage referred by Clement of Alexandria to the gospel of the Egyptians, this was probably the source of other quotations also. The epistle would seem from this to be earlier than the close of the 2nd cent., at which time our four gospels were in a position of exclusive authority. The controversies with which the writer deals are those of the early part of the 2nd cent. In language suggested by the Ep. to the Ephesians, the spiritual church is described as created before the sun and moon, as the female of whom Christ is the male, the body of which he is the soul. It seems likely that a work using such language had gained its acceptance with the church before Gnostic theories concerning the Aeons Christus and Ecclesia had brought discredit upon such speculations. The doctrine of the pre-existence of the church is, as Harnack noted, one of several points of contact between this work and the Shepherd of Hermas, making it probable that both emanate from the same age and the same circle. We therefore refer the place of composition to Rome,
notwithstanding an apparent reference to the Isthmian games which favours a connexion with Corinth. The description of the work as an Ep. to the Corinthians, never strongly supported by external evidence, is disproved by the newly discovered conclusion, whence it clearly appears that the work is, as Dodwell and others had supposed, no epistle, but a homily. It professes, and there seems no reason to doubt it, to have been composed to be publicly read in church, and therefore the writer's position in the church was one which would secure that use of his work. But he does not claim any position of superiority, and the foremost place in ruling and teaching the church is attributed to the body of presbyters. He nowhere claims to be Clement. But it is not strange that an anonymous, but undoubtedly early document of the Roman church should come to be ascribed to the universally acknowledged author of the earliest document of that church; nor that when both had come to be received as Clement's, the second should come to be regarded as, like the first, an epistle to the Corinthians.

The Two Epistles on Virginity. -- These are extant only in Syriac, and only in a single MS. purchased at Aleppo c. a.d.1750, for Wetstein. He had commissioned a copy of the Philoxenian version of the N.T. to be bought, and this MS. proved to be only a copy of the well-known Peshito. But the disappointment was compensated by the unexpected discovery of these letters, till then absolutely unknown in the West. After the Ep. to the Hebrews, the last in the Peshitta canon, the scribe adds a doxology, and a note with personal details by which we can date the MS. a.d.1470, and then proceeds, |We subjoin to the epistles of Paul those epistles of the apostles, which are not found in all the copies,| on which follow II. Peter, II., III. John, and Jude, from the Philoxenian version, and then, without any break, these letters, with the titles: |The first epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of Peter the apostle,| and |The second epistle of the same Clement.| The MS. is now preserved in the library of the Seminary of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam. The letters were published, as an appendix to his Greek Testament, by Wetstein, who also defended their authenticity. The last editor is Beelen (Louvain, 1856 ). The letters, though now only extant in Syriac, are proved by their Graecisms to be a translation from the Greek, and by the existence of a fragment containing an apparently different Syriac translation of one passage in them. This fragment is contained in a MS. bearing the date a.d.562. The earliest writer who quotes these letters is Epiphanius. In a passage, which until the discovery of the Syriac letters had been felt as perplexing, he describes Clement as |in the encyclical letters which he wrote, and which are read in the holy churches,| having taught virginity, and praised Elias and David and Samson, and all the prophets. The letters to the Corinthians cannot be described as encyclical; and the topics specified are not treated of in them, while they are dwelt on in the Syriac letters. St. Jerome, though in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers he follows Eusebius in mentioning only the two letters to the Corinthians as ascribed to Clement, yet must be understood as referring to the letters on virginity in his treatise against Jovinian where he speaks of Clement as composing almost his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity. He may have become acquainted with these letters during his residence in Palestine. The presumption against their genuineness, arising from the absence of notice of them by Eusebius and every other writer anterior to Epiphanius, and from the limited circulation which they appear ever to have attained in the church, is absolutely confirmed by internal evidence. Their style and whole colouring are utterly unlike those of the genuine epistle; and the writer is evidently one whose thoughts and language have been moulded by long and early acquaintance with N.T., in the same manner as those of the real Clement are by his acquaintance with the Old. The Gospel of St. John is more than once cited, but not any apocryphal N.T. book. Competent judges have assigned these epistles to the middle of the 2nd cent., but their arguments hardly suffice to exclude a somewhat later date.

The Epistles to James our Lord's Brother. -- In the article Clementine Literature is given an account of the letter to James by Clement, which relates how Peter, in immediate anticipation of death, ordained Clement as his successor, and gave him charge concerning his ministry. After the trans. of this letter by Rufinus, some Latin writer added a second, giving instruction as to the administration of the Eucharist and church discipline. These two letters had considerable currency in the West. In the forged decretals both were much enlarged, and 3 new letters purporting to be Clement's added. James is in the original Clementines the head of the church, but in the later epistle receives instruction and commands from Peter's successor Clement. There must have been yet other letters ascribed to Clement in the East if there be no error in the MS. of Leontius (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vii.84), who cites a passage not elsewhere extant as from the ninth letter of Clement. Discourses concerning Providence and the righteous judgment of God are cited by Anastasius of Antioch; and a 13th-cent. writer (Spicilegium Acherianum, viii.382) reports having seen in a Saracen MS. a book of Revelations of Peter, compiled by Clement. The highest, and probably the final, authority on St. Clement of Rome is now the great work of Bp. Lightfoot, forming, in 2 parts, pub.1890, vol. i. of his ed. of the Apostolic Fathers. See also Harnack, Chronol. der Altchr. Lit., 1897, pp.251 ff., 438 ff.; an ed. by A. Jacobson of Clement's works in 2 vols. in Apost. Patr. (Clar. Press); an Eng. trans. of the Epistle of Clement, by J. A. F. Gregg (S.P.C.K.).

[G.S.]

Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria. i. Life. -- His full name, Titus Flavius Clemens, is given by Eusebius (H. E. vi.13) and Photius (Cod.111) in the title of the Stromateis (Titou Phlaniou Klementos [Photius adds presbuterou Alexandreias] ton kata ten alethe philosophian gnostikon hupomnematon stromateis). The remarkable coincidence of the name with that of the nephew of Vespasian and consul in 95 cannot have been accidental, but we have no direct evidence of Clement's connexion with the imperial Flavian family. Perhaps he was descended from a freedman of the consul; his wide and varied learning indicates that he had received a liberal education, and so far suggests that his parents occupied a good social position. The place of his birth is not certainly known. Epiphanius, the earliest authority on the question, observes that two opinions were held in his time, |some saying that he was an Alexandrian, others that he was an Athenian| (hon phasi tines Alexandrea heteroi de Athenaion, Haer. xxxii.6). Alexandria was the principal scene of his labours; but there was no apparent reason for connecting him with Athens by mere conjecture. The statement that he was an Athenian must therefore have rested upon some direct tradition. Moreover, in recounting his wanderings he makes Greece the starting-point and Alexandria the goal of his search (Strom.1, § 11, p.322); and in the 2nd cent. Athens was still the centre of the literary and spiritual life of Greece. We may then with reasonable probability conclude that Clement was an Athenian by training if not by origin, and the fact that he was at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria towards the close of the century fixes the date of his birth c. a.d.150-160. Nothing is recorded of his parentage; but his own language seems to imply that he embraced Christianity by a personal act, as in some sense a convert (Paed. i. § 1, p.97, tas palaias apomnumenoi doxas; cf. Paed. ii. § 62, p.206, dakrua esmen . . . hoi eis auton
pepisteukotes), and this is directly affirmed by Eusebius (Praep. Ev. ii.2 f.), though perhaps simply by inference from Clement's words. Such a conversion would not be irreconcilable with the belief that Clement, like Augustine, was of Christian parentage at least on one side; but whether Clement's parents were Christians or heathens it is evident that heathenism attracted him for a time; and though he soon overcame its attractions, his inquisitive spirit did not at once find rest in Christianity. He enumerates six illustrious teachers under whom he studied the |true tradition of the blessed doctrine of the holy apostles.| His first teacher in Greece was an Ionian (Athenagoras?); others he heard in Magna Graecia; others in the East; and at last he found in Egypt the true master for whom he had sought (Strom. i, § 11, p.322). There can be no doubt that this master was Pantaenus, to whom he is said to have expressed his obligations in his Hypotyposes (Eus. H. E. vi.13, v.11). Pantaenus was then chief of the catechetical school, and though the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome (Eus. H. E. v.10; Hieron. de Vir. Ill.36, 38) are irreconcilable in their details and chronology, it is certain that on the death or retirement of Pantaenus, Clement succeeded to his office, and it is not unlikely that he had acted as his colleague before. The period during which Clement presided over the catechetical school (c. a.d.190-203) seems to have been the season of his greatest literary activity. He was now a presbyter of the church (Paed. i. § 37, p.120) and had the glory of reckoning Origen among his scholars. On the outbreak of the persecution under Severus (a.d.202, 203) in which Leonidas, the father of Origen, perished, Clement retired from Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi.3), never, as it seems, to return. Nothing is directly stated as to the place of his withdrawal. There are some indications of a visit to Syria (Eus. H. E. vi.11, hon iste); and, later, we find him in the company of an old pupil, Alexander, afterwards bp. of Jerusalem, and at that time a bp. of Cappadocia, who was in prison for the faith. If therefore Clement had before withdrawn from danger, it was through wisdom and not through fear. Alexander regarded his presence as due to |a special providence| (cf. Eus. H. E. vi.14), and charged him, in most honourable terms, with a letter of congratulation to the church of Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades to the bishopric of that city, a.d.311 (Eus. H. E. vi.11). This is the last mention of Clement which has been preserved. The time and the place of his death are alike unknown. Popular opinion reckoned him among the saints of the church; and he was commemorated in the early Western martyrologies on Dec.4. His name, however, was omitted in the martyrology issued by Clement VIII. after the corrections of Baronius; and Benedict XIV. elaborately defended the omission in a letter to John V. of Portugal, dated 1748. Benedict argued that the teaching of Clement was at least open to suspicion, and that private usage would not entitle him to a place in the calendar (Benedicti XIV. Opera, vi. pp.119 ff. ed.1842, where the evidence is given in detail; cf. Cognat, Clément d'Alexandrie, pp.451 ff.).

ii. Works. -- Eusebius, whom Jerome follows closely with some mistakes (de Vir. Ill.38) has given a list of the works of Clement (H. E. vi.13): (1) Stromateis, libb. viii.; (2) Hupotuposeis, libb. viii.; (3) Pros Hellenas logos protreptikos (adversus Gentes, Jerome); (4) Paidagogos, libb. iii.; (5) Tis ho sozomenos plouasios; (6) Peri tou pascha; (7) Dialexeis peri nesteias; (8) Peri katalalias; (9) Protreptikos eis hupomonen e pros tous neosti bebaptismenous (omitted by Jerome); (10) Kanon ekklesiastikos e pros tous Ioudai zontas (de Canonibus Ecclesiasticis et adversum eos qui Judaeorum sequuntur errorem, Jerome). Photius (Bibl. Codd.109-111) mentions that he read the first five works on the list, and knew by report 6, 7, 8 (peri kakologias); 10 (peri kanonon ekklesiastikon); from the variations in the titles and the omission of 9, it is evident that he derived his knowledge of these simply from the secondary Greek version of Jerome's list. Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 are still preserved almost entire. Of 2 considerable fragments remain; and of 6, 8, 10 a few fragments are preserved in express quotations.

Quotations are also found from a treatise peri pronoias, and from another peri psuches, to which Clement himself refers (Strom. iii.13, p.516; v.88, p.699). Elsewhere Clement speaks of his intention to write On First Principles (peri archon, Strom. iii.13, p.516 ; id.21, p.520; cf. iv.2, p.564); On Prophecy (Strom. v.88, p.699; id. iv.93, p.605); Against Heresies (Strom. iv.92, p.604); On the Resurrection (Paed. i.6, p.125); On Marriage (Paed. iii.8, p.278). But the references may be partly to sections of his greater works, and partly to designs never carried out (cf. Strom. iv.1-3, pp.563 f.). No doubt has been raised as to the genuineness of the Address, the Tutor, and the Miscellanies. Internal evidence shews them all the work of one writer (cf. Reinkens, de Clemente, cap. ii. § 4), and they have been quoted as Clement's by a continuous succession of Fathers even from the time of Origen (Comm. in Joh. ii.3, p.52 B; Strom.; anonymous). These three principal extant works form a connected series. The first is an exhortation to the heathen to embrace Christianity, based on an exposition of the comparative character of heathenism and Christianity; the second offers a system of training for the new convert, with a view to the regulation of his conduct as a Christian; the third is an introduction to Christian philosophy. The series was further continued in the lost Outlines (hupotuposeis), in which Clement laid the foundation of his philosophic structure in an investigation of the canonical writings. The mutual relations of these writings shew that Clement intended them as a complete system of Christian teaching, corresponding with the |whole economy of the gracious Word, Who first addresses, then trains, and then teaches| (Paed. i.1), bringing to man in due succession conviction, discipline, wisdom. The first three books correspond in a remarkable degree, as has frequently been remarked (Potter, ad Protrept. i.), with the stages of the neo-Platonic course, the Purification (apokatharsis), the Initiation (muesis), and the Vision (epopteia). The fourth book was probably designed to give a solid basis to the truths which were fleeting and unreal in systems of philosophy. Though his style is generally deficient in terseness and elegance, his method desultory, his learning undigested; yet we can still thankfully admire his richness of information, his breadth of reading, his largeness of sympathy, his lofty aspirations, his noble conception of the office and capacities of the Faith.

I. The Address to the Greeks (Logos protreptiko;s pros Hellenas: Cf. Strom. vii. § 22, p.421, en to protreptiko epigraphomeno hemin logo). -- The works of Clement were composed in the order in which they have been mentioned. The Tutor contains a reference to the Address in the first section (ho logos hopenika men epi soterian parekalei, protreptikos onoma outo en: cf. Strom. vii. § 22; Pott. p.841); and, if we can trust the assertion of Eusebius (H. E. v.28), some of Clement's works were composed before the accession of Victor (a.d.192). Putting these two facts together, we may reasonably suppose the Address written c. a.d.190. It was addressed to Greeks and not to Gentiles generally, as Jerome understood the word (|adversus gentes,| de Vir. Ill.38). It deals almost exclusively with Greek mythology and Greek speculation.

Its general aim is to prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and the philosophies of heathendom, while it satisfies the cravings of humanity to which they bore witness. The gospel is, as Clement shews with consummate eloquence, the New Song more powerful than that of Orpheus or Arion, new and yet older than the creation (c.1), pure and spiritual as contrasted with the sensuality and idolatry of the pagan rites, clear and substantial as compared with the vague hopes of poets and philosophers (2-9). In such a case, he argues, custom cannot be pleaded against the duty of conversion. Man is born for God, and is bound to obey the call of God, Who through the Word is waiting to make him like unto Himself. The choice is between judgment and grace, between destruction and life: can the issue then be doubtful (10-12)?

It is not difficult to point out errors in taste, fact, and argument throughout Clement's appeal; but it would be perhaps impossible to shew in any earlier work passages equal to those in which he describes the mission of the Word, the Light of men (p.88), and pictures the true destiny of man (pp.92 ff.).

II. The Tutor (ho Paidagogos; cf. Hos. v.2, quoted in Paed. i.7, p.129). -- The Tutor was written before the Miscellanies, in which the Tutor is described generally (Strom. vi. § 1, p.736) -- i.e. c. a.d.190-195. The writer's design was |to prepare from early years, that is from the beginning of elementary instruction (ek katecheseos), a rule of life growing with the increase of faith, and fitting the souls of those just on the verge of manhood with virtue so as to enable them to receive the higher knowledge of philosophy| (eis epistemes gnostikes paradochen, Strom. l.c.).

The main scope of the Tutor is therefore practical: the aim is action and not knowledge; but still action as preparatory to knowledge, and resting upon conviction. It is divided into three books. The first gives a general description of the Tutor, Who is the Word Himself (1-3); of the |children| whom He trains, Christian men and women alike (4-6); and of His general method, using both chastisements and love (7-12). The second and third books deal with special precepts designed to meet the actual difficulties of contemporary life and not to offer a theory of morals. It would not be easy to find elsewhere, even in the Roman satirists, an equally vivid and detailed picture of heathen manners. The second book contains general directions as to eating and drinking (1 f.), furniture (3), entertainments (4-8), sleep (9), the relations of men and women (10), the use of jewellery (11 f.). The third book opens with an inquiry into the nature of true beauty (c.1). This leads to a condemnation of extravagance in dress both in men and in women (2 ff.), of luxurious establishments (4 f.), of the misuse of wealth (6 f.). Frugality and exercise are recommended (8-10); and many minute directions are added -- often curiously suggestive in the present times -- as to dress and behaviour (11 f.). General instructions from Holy Scripture as to the various duties and offices of life lead up to the prayer to the Tutor -- the Word -- with which the work closes. Immediately after the Tutor are printed in the editions of Clement two short poems, which have been attributed to him. The first, written in an anapaestic measure, is A Hymn of the Saviour Christ (humnos tou Soteros Christou), and the second, written in trimeter iambics, is addressed To the Tutor (heis ton Paidagogon). The first is said to be |Saint Clement's| (tou hagiou Klementos) in those MSS. which contain it; but it may be a work of primitive date, like the Morning Hymn which has been preserved in our Communion office as the Gloria in Excelsis. If it were Clement's, and designed to occupy its present place, it is scarcely possible that it would have been omitted in any MS.; while it makes an appropriate and natural addition if taken from some other source. There is no evidence to shew that the second is Clement's work; it is doubtless an effusion of some pious scholar of a later date.

III. The Miscellanies (Stromateis). -- The title, patchwork (or rather bags for holding the bedclothes, like
stromatodesmoi), suggests a true idea of the character of the work. It is designedly unmethodical, a kind of meadow, as Clement describes it, or rather a wooded mountain (vii. § 111), studded irregularly with various growths, and so fitted to exercise the ingenuity and labour of those likely to profit by it (vi. § 2, p.736, Pott.). But yet the book is inspired by one thought. It is an endeavour to claim for the gospel the power of fulfilling all the desires of men and of raising to a supreme unity all the objects of knowledge, in the soul of the true gnostic -- the perfect Christian philosopher. The first book, which is mutilated at the beginning, treats in the main of the office and the origin of Greek philosophy in relation to Christianity and Judaism. Clement shews that Greek philosophy was part of the Divine education of men, subordinate to the training of the law and the prophets, but yet really from God (§§ 1-58; 91-100). In his anxiety to establish this cardinal proposition he is not content with shewing that the books of O.T. are older than those of the philosophers (59-65; 101-164; 180-182); but endeavours to prove also that the philosophers borrowed from the Jews (66-90; 165 f.). After this he vindicates the character and explains the general scope of the law -- |the philosophy of Moses| (167-179). The main object of the second book lies in the more detailed exposition of the originality and superiority of the moral teaching of revelation as compared with that of Greek philosophy which was in part derived from it (§§ 1 ff.; 20-24; 78-96). The argument includes an examination of the nature of faith (4-19; 25-31), resting on a godly fear and perfected by love (32-55); and of repentance (56-71). He discusses the sense in which human affections are ascribed to God (72-75); and shews that the conception of the ideal Christian is that of a man made like to God (97-126), in accordance with the noblest aspirations of philosophy (127-136). The book closes with a preliminary discussion of marriage. The third book investigates the true doctrine of marriage (§§ 57-60) as against those who indulged in every license on the ground that bodily actions are indifferent (1-11; 25-44); and, on the other hand, those who abstained from marriage from hatred of the Creator (12-24; 45-46). Various passages of Scripture wrongly interpreted by heretics are examined (61-101); and the two main errors are shewn to be inconsistent with Christianity (102-110). The fourth book opens with a very interesting outline of the whole plan of the comprehensive apology for Christianity on which he had entered (§§ 1-3). The work evidently grew under his hands, and he implies that he could hardly expect to accomplish the complete design. He then adds fresh traits to his portrait of the true |gnostic.| Self-sacrifice, martyrdom, lie at the root of his nature (8-56; 72-77), virtues within the reach of all states and of both sexes (57-71), though even this required to be guarded against fanaticism and misunderstanding (78-96). Other virtues, as love and endurance, are touched upon (97-119); and then Clement gives a picture of a godly woman (120-131), and of the gnostic, who rises above fear and hope to that perfection which rests in the knowledge and love of God (132-174). In the fifth book Clement, following the outline laid down (iv.1), discusses faith and hope (§§ 1-18), and then passes to the principle of enigmatic teaching. This, he argues, was followed by heathen and Jewish masters alike (19-26); by Pythagoras (27-31); by Moses, in the ordinances of the tabernacle (32-41); by the Aegyptians (42-44); and by many others (45-56). The principle itself is, he maintains, defensible on intelligible grounds (57-60), and supported by the authority of the apostles (61-67). For in fact the knowledge of God can be gained only through serious effort and by divine help (68-89). This review of the character and sources of the highest knowledge leads Clement back to his characteristic proposition that the Greeks borrowed from the Jews the noblest truths of their own philosophy. The sixth and seventh books are designed, as Clement states (vi. § 1) to shew the character of the Christian philosopher (the gnostic), and so to make it clear that he alone is the true worshipper of God. By way of prelude Clement repeats and enforces (§§ 4-38) what he had said on Greek plagiarisms, yet admitting that the Greeks had some true knowledge of God (39-43), and affirming that the gospel was preached in Hades to those of them who had lived according to their light (44-53), though that was feeble compared with the glory of the gospel (54-70). He then sketches the lineaments of the Christian philosopher, who attains to a perfectly passionless state (71-79) and masters for the service of the faith all forms of knowledge, including various mysteries open to him only (80-114). The reward of this true philosopher is proportioned to his attainments (115-148). These are practically unlimited in range, for Greek philosophy, though a gift of God for the training of the nations, is only a recreation for the Christian philosopher in comparison with the serious objects of his study (149-168). In the seventh book Clement regards the Christian philosopher as the one true worshipper of God (§§ 1-5), striving to become like the Son of God (5-21), even as the heathen conversely made their gods like themselves (22-27). The soul is his temple; prayers and thanksgivings, his sacrifice; truth, the law of his life (28-54). Other traits are added to the portraiture of |the gnostic| (55-88); and Clement then meets the general objection urged against Christianity from the conflict of rival sects (89-92). Heresy, he replies, can be detected by two tests. It is opposed to the testimony of Scripture (93-105); and it is of recent origin (106-108). At the close of the seventh book Clement remarks that he |shall proceed with his argument from a fresh beginning| (ton hexes ap alles arches poiesometha ton logon). The phrase may mean that he proposes to enter upon a new division of the Miscellanies, or that he will now pass to another portion of the great system of writings sketched out in Strom. iv.1-3. In favour of the first opinion it may be urged that Eusebius (H. E. vi.13) and Photius (Cod.109) expressly mention eight books of the Miscellanies; while on the other hand the words themselves, taken in connexion with vii.1, point rather to the commencement of a new book. The fragment which bears the title of the eighth book in the one remaining MS. is in fact a piece of a treatise on logic. It may naturally have served as an introduction to the examination of the opinions of Greek philosophers, the interpretation of Scripture, and the refutation of heresies which were the general topics of the second principal member of Clement's plan (iv.2); but it is not easy to see how it could have formed the close of the Miscellanies. It is |a fresh beginning| and nothing more. In the time of Photius (c. a.d.850) the present fragment was reckoned as the eighth book in some copies, and in others the tract, On the Rich Man that is Saved (Bibl.111). Still further confusion is indicated by the fact that passages from the Extracts from the Prophetical Writings are quoted from |the eighth book of the Miscellanies| (Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. i.288 f.), and also from |the eighth book of the Outlines| (id.285); while the discussion of prophecy was postponed from the Miscellanies to some later opportunity (Strom. vii.1, cf. iv.2). Perhaps the simplest solution is to suppose that at a very early date the logical introduction to the Outlines was separated from the remainder of the work, and added to MSS. of the Miscellanies. In this way the opinion would arise that there were 8 books of the Miscellanies, and scribes supplied the place of bk. viii. according to their pleasure.

IV. The Outlines (Hupotuposeis) probably grew out of the Miscellanies. Several express quotations from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th books of the Outlines have been preserved; but the fragments are too few and Clement's method too desultory to allow these to furnish a certain plan of the arrangement of the work. They agree, however, fairly with the summary description of Photius, and probably books i.-iii. contained the general introduction, with notes on the O.T. (|Genesis, Exodus, and the Psalms|); books iv.-vi., notes on the Epp. of St. Paul; books vii. vii i., on the Catholic Epp.

In addition to the detached quotations, there can be no reasonable doubt that the three series of extracts, (a) The summaries from the expositions of Theodotus and the so-called Western school, (b) The selections from the comments on the prophets, and (c) The outlines on the Catholic Epistles, were taken from the Outlines. But partly from the method of compilation, partly from the manner in which they have been preserved in a single MS., these fragments, though of the deepest interest, are at present only imperfectly intelligible.

(a) The summaries from Theodotus (ek ton Theodotou kai tes anatolikes kaloumenes didaskalias kata tous Oualentinou chronous epitomai) are at once the most corrupt and the most intrinsically difficult of the extracts. It appears as if the compiler set down hastily the passages which contained the interpretations of the school which he wished to collect, without regard to the context, and often in an imperfect form. Sometimes he adds the criticism of Clement (hemeis de, § 8; Emoi de, § 17; ho hemeteros [logos], § 33); but generally the Valentinian comment is given without remark (hoi apo Oualentinou, §§ 2, 6, 16, 23, 25; hoi Oualentinianoi, §§ 21, 24, 37; hos phesin ho Theodotos, §§ 22, 26, 30; phesi, §§ 41, 67; phasi, §§ 33, 35; legousin, § 43). It follows that in some cases it is uncertain whether Clement quotes a Valentinian author by way of exposition, or adopts the opinion which he quotes. The same ambiguity appears to have existed in the original work; and it is easy to see how Photius, rapidly perusing the treatise, may have attributed to Clement doctrines which he simply recited without approval and without examination. Thus, in the fragments which remain, occasion might be given to charge Clement with false opinions on the nature of the Son (§ 19), on the creation of Eve (§ 21), on the two Words (§§ 6, 7, 19), on Fate (§§ 75 ff.), on the Incarnation (§ 1). There is no perceptible order or connexion in the series of extracts. The beginning and end are equally corrupt. Some sections are quite detached (e.g. §§ 9, 18, 21, 28, 66, etc.); others give a more or less continuous exposition of some mystery: e.g. §§ 10-16 (the nature of spiritual existences); 39-65 (the relations of wisdom, Jesus, the Christ, the demiurge; the material, the animal, the spiritual); 67-86 (birth, fate, baptism).

(b) The prophetic selections (ek ton prophetikon eklogai) are for the most part scarcely less desultory and disconnected than the Summaries, but far simpler in style and substance. They commence with remarks on the symbolism of the elements, and mainly of water (§§ 1-8). Then follow fragmentary reflections on discipline (9-11), on knowledge, faith, creation, the new creation (12-24), fire (25 f.), on writing and preaching (27), on traits of the true gnostic (28-37). A long and miscellaneous series of observations, some of them physiological, succeeds (38-50), and the collection closes with a fairly continuous exposition of Ps. xviii. (xix.).

Manuscript. -- The summaries from Theodotus and the prophetic selections are at present found only in Cod. Flor. (L.). The text given in the edd. of Clement is most corrupt. The conjectural emendations and Latin trans. of J. Bernays, given by Bunsen in his ed. of the fragments of The Outlines (Anal. Ante-Nic. i.), are by far our most valuable help for the understanding of the text. Dindorf, in his ed., has overlooked these.

(c) The third important fragment of the Outlines consists of a Latin version of notes on detached verses of I. Peter, Jude, and I., II. John, with several insertions, probably due in some cases to transpositions in the MS. (e.g.1, hae namque primitivae, virtutes -- audita est, Pott. p.1009, stands properly in connexion with the line of speculation on Jude 9; and in others to a marginal illustration drawn from some other part of the work (e.g. Jude 24, cum dicit Daniel -- confusus est). Cassiodorus says (Inst. Div. Litt.8) that Clement wrote some remarks on I. Peter i., II. John, and James, which were generally subtle, but at times rash; and that he himself translated them into Latin, with such revision as rendered their teaching more safe. It has generally been supposed, in spite of the difference of range (James for Jude) that these Latin notes are the version of Cassiodorus. It seems, however, more probable that the printed notes are mere glosses taken from a Catena, and not a substantial work. The Adumbrationes were published by de la Bigne in his Bibliotheca Patrum, Par.1575 (and in later editions); but he gives no account of the MS. or MSS. from which the text was taken. Ph. Labbe, however, states (de Scriptt. Eccles.1660, i. p.230) that he saw an ancient parchment MS., |qui fuit olim Coenobii S. Mariae Montis Dei,| which contained these Adumbrationes, under that title, together with Didymus's commentary on the Catholic Epistles. De la Bigne then, probably, found the notes of Clement in the |very ancient but somewhat illegible MS.| from which he took his text of Didymus, which follows the Adumbrationes (Bibl. vi. p.676 n.).

V. The remaining extant work of Clement, Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? (tis ho sozomenos plousios;) is apparently a popular address based upon Mark x.17-31. The teaching is simple, eloquent, and just; and the tract closes with the exquisite |story, which is no story| of St. John and the young robber, which Eusebius relates in his History (iii.23).

iii. Clements' Position and Influence as a Christian Teacher. -- In order to understand Clement rightly, it is necessary to bear in mind that he laboured in a crisis of transition. This gives his writings their peculiar interest in all times of change. The transition was threefold, affecting doctrine, thought, and life. Doctrine was passing from the stage of oral tradition to written definition (1). Thought was passing from the immediate circle of the Christian revelation to the whole domain of human experience (2). Life in its fulness was coming to be apprehended as the object of Christian discipline (3). A few suggestions will be offered upon the first two of these heads. (1) Clement repeatedly affirms that even when he sets forth the deepest mysteries, he is simply reproducing an original unwritten tradition. This had been committed by the Lord to the apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul, and handed down from father to son, till at length he set forth accurately in writing what had been delivered in word (Strom. i. § 11, p.322; cf. vi.68, p.774; and fragm. ap. Eus. H. E. ii.1). But this tradition was, as he held it, not an independent source of doctrine, but a guide to the apprehension of doctrine. It was not co-ordinate with Scripture, but interpretative of Scripture (Strom. vi.124 f., pp 802 f.; de Div. Sal. § 5, p.938). It was the help to the training of the Christian philosopher (ho gnostikos), and not part of the heritage of the simple believer. Tradition in this aspect preserved the clue to the right understanding of the hidden sense, the underlying harmonies, the manifold unity of revelation. More particularly the philosopher was able to obtain through tradition the general principles of interpreting the records of revelation and significant illustrations of their application. In this way the true |gnostic| was saved from the errors of the false |gnostic| or heretic, who interpreted Scripture without regard to |the ecclesiastical rule| (Strom. vi.125, p.803, kanon ekklesiastikos: ho ekkl. k. ib. vi.165, p.826; vii.41, p.855; cf. ho kanon tes aletheias, ib. vi.124, p.802; 131, p.806; vii.94, p.890; ho kanon tes ekklesias, ib. i.96, p.375; vii.105, p.897). The examples of spiritual interpretation which Clement gives in accordance with this traditional |rule| are frequently visionary and puerile (e.g. Strom. vi.133 ff. pp.807 ff.). But none the less the rule itself witnessed to a vital truth, the continuity and permanent value of the books of Holy Scripture. This truth was an essential part of the inheritance of the Catholic church; and Clement, however faulty in detail, did good service in maintaining it (id. vii.96, p.891). As yet, however, the contents of the Christian Bible were imperfectly defined. Clement, like the other Fathers who habitually used the Alexandrine O.T., quotes the books of the Apocrypha without distinguishing them in any way from the books of the Hebrew canon, and he appears to regard the current Greek Bible as answering to the Hebrew Scriptures restored by Ezra (Strom. i.124, p.392; id.148, p.409). There is the same laxity of usage in Clement with regard to the N.T. He ascribes great weight to the Ep. of Barnabas (Strom. ii.31, p.445; id.116, p.489); and makes frequent use of the Preaching of Peter (Strom. i.182, p.427, etc.); and quotes the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews (Strom. ii.45, p.453). Eusebius further adds that he wrote notes on the Revelation of Peter, which is in fact quoted in the Extracts from the Prophets (§§ 41, 48, 49). The text of his quotations is evidently given from memory (e.g. Matt. v.45, vi.26, etc.). But as the earliest Greek writer who largely and expressly quotes the N.T. (for the Greek fragments of Irenaeus are of comparatively small compass), his evidence as to the primitive form of the apostolic writings is of the highest value. Not unfrequently he is one of a very small group of witnesses who have preserved an original reading (e.g. I. Cor. ii.13, vii.3, 5, 35, 39, etc.). In other cases his readings, even when presumably wrong, are shewn by other evidence to have been widely spread at a very early date (e.g. Matt. vi.33).

It is impossible here to follow in detail Clement's opinions on special points of doctrine. The contrast which he draws between the gnostic (the philosophic Christian) and the ordinary believer is of more general interest. This contrast underlies the whole plan of his Miscellanies, and explains the different aspects in which doctrine, according to his view, might be regarded as an object of faith and as an object of knowledge. Faith is the foundation; knowledge the superstructure (Strom. vi.26, p.660). By knowledge faith is perfected (id. vii.55, p.864), for to know is more than to believe (id. vi.109, p.794). Faith is a summary knowledge of urgent truths: knowledge a sure demonstration of what has been received through faith, being itself reared upon faith through the teaching of the Lord (id. vii.57, p.865). Thus the gnostic grasps the complete truth of all revelation from the beginning of the world to the end, piercing to the depths of Scripture, of which the believer tastes the surface only (id. vi.78, p.779; 131, p.806; vii.95, p.891). As a consequence of this intelligent sympathy with the Divine Will, the gnostic becomes in perfect unity in himself (monadikos), and as far as possible like God (id. iv.154, p· 633; vii.13, p.835). Definite outward observances cease to have any value for one whose whole being is brought into an abiding harmony with that which is eternal: he has no wants, no passions; he rests in the contemplation of God, which is and will be his unfailing blessedness (id. vii.35, p.851, 84, p.883; vi.71, p.776; vii.56, p.865). In this outline it is easy to see the noblest traits of later mysticism; and if some of Clement's statements go beyond subjects which lie within the powers of man, still he bears impressive testimony to two essential truths, that the aim of faith through knowledge perfected by love is the present recovery of the divine likeness; and that formulated doctrine is not an end in itself, but a means whereby we rise through fragmentary propositions to knowledge which is immediate and one.

(2) The character of the gnostic, the ideal Christian, the perfect philosopher, represents the link between man, in his earthly conflict, and God: it represents also the link between man and men. The gnostic fulfils through the gospel the destiny and nature of mankind, and gathers together the fruit of their varied experience. This thought of the Incarnation as the crown and consummation of the whole history of the world is perhaps that which is most characteristic of Clement's office as an interpreter of the faith. It rests upon his view of human nature, of the providential government of God, of the finality of the Christian dispensation. Man, according to Clement, is born for the service of God. His soul (psuche) is a gift sent down to him from heaven by God (Strom. iv.169, p.640), and strains to return thither (id.9, p.567). For this end there is need of painful training (Strom. i.33, 1, 335; vi.78, p.779); and the various partial sciences are helps towards the attainment of the true destiny of existence (Strom. vi.80 ff. pp.780 ff.). The |image| of God which man receives at his birth is slowly completed in the |likeness| of God (Strom. ii.131, p.499; cf. Paed. i.98, p.156). The inspiration of the divine breath by which he is distinguished from other creatures (Gen. ii.7) is fulfilled by the gift of the Holy Spirit to the believer, which that original constitution makes possible (Strom. v.87 f.; p.698: cf. Strom. iv.150, p.632). The image of God, Clement says elsewhere, is the Word (Logos), and the true image of the Word is man, that is, the reason in man (Cohort.98, p.79). It flows necessarily from this view of humanity, as essentially related to God through the Word, that Clement acknowledged a providential purpose in the development of Gentile life. He recognized in the bright side of Gentile speculation many divine elements. These he regarded as partly borrowed from Jewish revelation, and partly derived from reason illuminated by the Word (Logos), the final source of reason. Some truths, he says, the Greek philosophers stole and disfigured; some they overlaid with restless and foolish speculations; others they discovered, for they also perhaps had |a spirit of wisdom| (Ex. xxviii.3) (Strom. i.87, p.369) He distinctly recognized the office which Greek philosophy fulfilled for the Greeks as a guide to righteousness, and a work of divine providence (Strom. i.176 ff. pp.425 ff.; 91 ff. pp.372 ff.). He regarded it as a preparation for justifying faith (Strom. i.99, p.377; vi.44, p.762; id.47 ff. pp.764 ff.), and in a true sense a dispensation, a covenant (Strom. vi.42, p.761; id.67, p.773; id.159, p.823; i.28, p.331).

The training of Jews and of the Greeks was thus in different ways designed to fit men for the final manifestation of the Christ. The systems were partial in their essence, and by human imperfection were made still more so. The various schools of philosophy, Jewish and heathen, are described by Clement under a memorable image, as rending in pieces the one truth like the Bacchants who rent the body of Pentheus, and bore about the fragments in triumph. Each, he says, boasts that the morsel which it has had the good fortune to gain is all the truth. Yet by the rising of the light all things are lightened, and he who again combines the divided parts and unites the exposition (logos) in a perfect whole will look upon the truth without peril (Strom. i.57, p.349).

Towards this great unity of all science and all life Clement himself strove; and by the influence of his writings kept others alive to the import of the magnificent promises in the teaching of St. Paul and St. John. He affirmed, once for all, upon the threshold of the new age, that Christianity is the heir of all past time, and the interpreter of the future. Sixteen centuries have confirmed the truth of his principle, and left its application still fruitful.

Clement of Alexandria's works are in Migne's Patr. Gk. vols. viii. ix.; and an ed. of his Opera ex rec. Guil. Dindorfii in 4 vols. with Latin notes is pub. by the Clarendon Press. A full enumeration of the MSS. of Clement's works will be found in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.).

Besides the chief Church Histories, the following works are important for the study of Clement: Le Nourry, Appar. ad Bibliothecam Patrum, lib. iii. (reprinted in Dindorf's edition); Moehler, Patrologie, 1840; Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, lect. xvi.; and the histories of the Alexandrine School, by Guericke, Matter, J. Simon, Vacherot. Interesting summaries of Clement's teaching, besides those in the general works of Lumper, Maréchal, and Schramm, are given by bp. Kaye (Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, Lond.1835); abbé Freppel (Clement d'Alexandrie, cours à la Sorbonne, Paris, 1866); Ch. Bigg (The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxf.1886); F. J. A. Hort (Six Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Lond.1895). A cheap popular Life is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers; an Eng. trans. of the Homily on the Rich Man by P. M. Barnard (S.P.C.K.), text by the same in Texts and Studies, vol. v. No.2 (Camb. Univ. Press), who has also collected Clement's Biblical text for the gospel and Acts (ib. vol. v. No.4). A valuable ed. of the 7th book of the Miscellanies, with translation, introduction and notes, was pub. in 1902 at Cambridge by the late Prof. Hort and Prof. J. B. Mayor. Translations of most of his works are contained in the Ante-Nicene Lib. vol. ii. (T. &; T. Clark).

[B.F.W.]

Clementine Literature
Clementine Literature. Among the spurious writings attributed to Clement of Rome, the chief is one which purported to contain a record made by Clement of discourses of the apostle Peter, together with an account of the circumstances under which Clement came to be Peter's travelling companion, and of other details of Clement's family history. This work assumed a variety of forms. The Ebionitism with which the original work had been strongly coloured was first softened, then removed. Changes were also made with a view to improvement of the story; and as time went on far more interest was felt in the framework of narrative than in the discourses themselves. In the latest forms of the work, several of the discourses are omitted, and the rest greatly abridged. In early times, even when the work was rejected as heretical, it yet seems to have been supposed to rest on a groundwork of fact, and several statements passed into church tradition which appear primarily to rest on its authority. Afterwards, in its orthodox form, it was accepted as a genuine work of Clement and a trustworthy historical authority. On the revival of learning the disposition was to disregard the book as a heretical figment quite worthless to the student of church history. Later it was seen that even if no more than a historical novel composed with a controversial object towards the end of the 2nd cent., such a document must be most valuable in shewing the opinions of the school from which it emanated; and accordingly the Clementine writings play an important part in all modem discussions concerning the history of the early ages of the church.

The work has come down to us in three principal forms.1. The Homilies (in. the MSS. ta Klementia), first printed by Cotelier in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers 1672, from one of the Colbertine MSS. in the Paris Library. This manuscript is both corrupt and defective, breaking off in the middle of the 19th of the 20 homilies of which the entire work consists. The complete work was first pub. by Dressel, 1853, from a MS. which he found in the Ottobonian Library in the Vatican. Notes on the homilies by Wieseler, which were intended to have formed part of this publication, only appeared in 1859 as an appendix to Dressel's ed. of the Epitomes (see below). The two MSS. mentioned are the only ones now known to exist.

II. The Recognitions (anagnoseis, anagnorismoi) bears in the MSS. a great variety of titles, the most common being Itinerarium S. Clementis (corresponding probably to periodoi Klementos or periodoi Petrou). The original is lost, but the work is preserved in a translation by Rufinus, of which many MSS. are extant. Rufinus states in his preface that there were then extant two forms differing in many respects. He adds that he had omitted certain passages common to both, one of which he specifies, as being, to say the least, unintelligible to him; and elsewhere expresses his opinion that those passages had been interpolated by heretics. He claims to have aimed at giving rather a literal than an elegant translation; and there seems reason to regard this translation as more faithful than some others by him. We can test his work in the case of fragments of the original preserved by quotation, and, moreover, we have a Syriac trans. of the first three books, which is in the main in fair agreement with the Latin. For one of the most important variations see Lightfoot On the Galatians, 4th ed. p.316. The trans. of Rufinus was first pub. by Sichardus (Basle, 1526). The most important later edd. are by Cotelier in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 1672) and by Gersdorf (Leipz.1838). A new ed., founded on a better collation of MSS., is much to be wished for. The Syriac trans., an ed. of which was pub. by de Lagarde, 1861, is preserved in two MSS. in the British Museum. The older of these claims to have been written at Edessa, a.d.411, and exhibits errors of transcription, which shew that it was taken from a still earlier MS. It contains the books i. ii. and iii. of the Recognitions and part of c. i. of book iv., at the end of which is marked |the end of the first discourse of Clemens.| Then follow the 10th homily headed |the third against the Gentiles|; the 11th homily headed |the fourth|; the 12th and 13th homilies, the former only as far as c. xxiv., with the heading |from Tripoli in Phoenicia|; and the 14th homily headed |book xiv.,| after which is marked |the end of the discourses of Clemens.| The other MS. is some four centuries later, and contains only the first three books of the Recognitions, the note at the end being |the ninth of Clemens who accompanied Simon Cephas is ended.| Eng. trans. of both the Homilies and the Recognitions are given in the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. &; T. Clark).

III. The Epitome, first pub. by Turnebus, 1555, is an abridgment of the first form (i.e. the Homilies), and contains also a continuation of the story, use being made therein of the martyrdom of Clement by Simeon Metaphrastes, and of a tale by Ephraim, bp. of Chersonesus, of a miracle performed at the tomb of Clement. The Epitome is given in forms of varying fulness in different MSS. The edition by Dressel (Leipz.1859), besides giving a fuller version of the Epitome as previously pub., contains also a second form considerably different. There must have been at least one other form not now extant, called by Uhlhorn the orthodox Clementines, which retained the discourses, but completely expurgated the heresy contained in them. This is inferred from the citations of the late Greek writers (Nicephorus Callisti, Cedrenus, and Michael Glycas); and the Clementines so amended were so entirely accepted by the later Greek church, that a Scholiast on Eusebius is quite unable to understand the charge of heresy which his author brings against them. In what follows we set aside the Epitomes as being manifestly a late form, and confine our attention to the other two forms, viz. the Homilies and Recognitions, to which, or to their writers, we shall refer as H. and R. Of these the Homilies contain all the characteristics of Ebionitism in much the harsher form; but before discussing the doctrine, we will compare the narratives as told in either form. The following is an abstract of the Recognitions. The form is that of an autobiography addressed by Clement to James, bp. of Jerusalem. The work divides itself into three portions, probably of different dates.

I. Clement, having stated that he was born at Rome and from early years a lover of chastity, gives a lively description of the perplexity caused him by his anxiety to solve the problems, what had been the origin and what would be the future of the world, and whether he himself might look forward to a future life. He seeks in vain for knowledge in the schools of the philosophers, finding nothing but disputings, contradiction, and uncertainty. At length a rumour that there had arisen in Judaea a preacher of truth possessed of miraculous power is confirmed by the arrival of Barnabas in Rome, who declares that the Son of God was even then preaching in Judaea, and promising eternal life to His disciples. Barnabas is rudely received by the Roman rabble, and returns to his own country in haste to be present at a Jewish feast. Clement, though desirous to accompany him for further instruction, is detained by the necessity of collecting money due to him; but sails shortly after for Palestine, and after a fifteen days' voyage arrives at Caesarea. There he finds Barnabas again and is introduced by him to Peter, who had arrived at Caesarea on the same day, and who was on the next to hold a discussion with Simon the Samaritan. Peter forthwith frees Clement from his perplexities, by instructing him in the doctrine of the |true prophet.| For one who has received the true prophet's credentials there is an end of uncertainty; faith in Him can never be withdrawn, nor can anything which He teaches admit of doubt or question. Clement by Peter's orders committed his teaching to writing, and sent the book to James, to whom Peter had been commanded annually to transmit an account of his doings. We are next told that Simon postponed the appointed discussion with Peter, who uses the interval thus gained to give Clement a continuous exposition of the faith, in which God's dealings are declared from the commencement of the world to the then present time. This section includes an account of a disputation held on the temple steps between the apostles and the various sects of the Jews, viz. the priests, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Scribes and Pharisees, and the disciples of John. When the apostles are on the point of success the disputation is broken off by a tumult raised by an unnamed enemy, who is unmistakably Saul, who flings James down the temple steps, leaving him for dead, and disperses the assembly. The disciples fly to Jericho, and the enemy hastens to Damascus, whither he supposes Peter to have fled in order there to make havoc of the faithful. At Jericho, James hears from Zacchaeus of the mischief being done by Simon at Caesarea, and sends Peter thither to refute him, ordering him to report to him annually, but more particularly every seven years. In the section just described there are some things which do not harmonize with what has gone before. The date of the events related is given as seven years after our Lord's passion, although the previous story implies that Clement's voyage had been made in the very year that ended our Lord's ministry. Also in one place (I.71) Peter is mentioned in the third person, though he is himself the speaker. These facts prove that the story of Clement has been added on to an older document. It has been conjectured that this document was an Ebionite work Anabathmoi Iakobou, the contents of which, as described by Epiphanius (xxx.16), well correspond with those of this section, and the title of which might be explained as referring to discourses on the temple steps. But this conjecture encounters the difficulty that the author himself indicates a different source for this part of his work.

We are next introduced to two disciples of Peter, Nicetas and Aquila, who had been disciples of Simon. These give an account of the history of Simon and of his magical powers, stating that Simon supposed himself to perform his wonders by the aid of the soul of a murdered boy, whose likeness was preserved in Simon's bed-chamber. Prepared with this information, Peter enters into a public discussion with Simon which lasts for three days, the main subject in debate being whether the difficulty of reconciling the existence of evil with the goodness and power of the Creator does not force us to believe in the existence of a God different from the Creator of the world. The question of the immortality of the soul is also treated of, and this brings the discussion to a dramatic close. For Peter offers to settle the question by proceeding to Simon's bed-chamber, and interrogating the soul of the murdered boy, whose likeness was there preserved. On finding his secret known to Peter, Simon humbles himself, but retracts his repentance on Peter's acknowledging that he had this knowledge, not by prophetic power, but from associates of Simon. The multitude, however, are filled with indignation, and drive Simon away in disgrace. Simon departs, informing his disciples that divine honours await him at Rome. Peter resolves to follow him among the Gentiles and expose his wickedness; and having remained three months at Caesarea for the establishment of the church, he ordains Zacchaeus as its bishop, and sets out for Tripolis, now the centre of Simon's operations. This brings the third book of the Recognitions to a close; and here we are told that Clement sent to James an account in ten books of Peter's discourses, of which the author gives the contents in detail, from which we may conclude that they formed a work really in existence previous to his own composition. These contents can scarcely be described as an abstract of the three books of the Recognitions; for though the same topics are more or less touched on, the order and proportion of treatment are different. One of the books is described as treating of the Apostles' disputation at the temple; and therefore it seems needless to look for the original of this part in the Ascents of James or elsewhere.

II. On Peter's arrival at Tripolis he finds that Simon, hearing of his coming, had fled by night to Syria. Peter proceeds to instruct the people; and his discourses containing a polemic against heathenism, occupy the next three books of R. Bk. vi. terminates with the baptism of Clement and the ordination of a bishop, after which Peter sets out for Antioch, having spent 3 months at Tripolis.

III. With bk. vii. the story of Clement's recognition of his family begins. We shall presently discuss how an occasion is skilfully presented for Clement's relating his family history to Peter. That history is as follows: Clement's father, Faustinianus, was a member of the emperor's family, and married by him to a lady of noble birth, named Mattidia. By her he had twin sons, Faustus and Faustinus, and afterwards Clement. When Clement was five years old, Mattidia told her husband that she had seen a vision warning her that unless she and her twin sons speedily left Rome and remained absent for ten years, all must perish miserably. Thereupon the father sent his wife and children with suitable provision of money and attendance to Athens, in order to educate them there. But after her departure no tidings reached Rome, and Faustinianus, having in vain sent others to inquire for them, at length left Clement under guardianship at Rome, and departed himself in search of them. But he too disappeared, and Clement, now aged thirty-two, had never since heard of father, mother, or brothers. The story proceeds to tell how Peter and Clement on their way to Antioch go over to the island of Aradus to see the wonders of a celebrated temple there. While Clement and his party are admiring works of Phidias preserved in the temple, Peter converses with a beggar woman outside, and the story she tells of her life is in such agreement with that previously told him by Clement, that Peter is able to unite mother and son. The vision which she had related had been feigned in order to escape from the incestuous addresses of her husband's brother, without causing family discord by revealing his wickedness. On her voyage to Athens she had been shipwrecked, and cast on shore by the waves, without being able to tell what had become of her children. All now return to the main land, and on telling the story to their companions who had been left behind, Nicetas and Aquila recognize their own story and declare themselves to be the twin sons, who had been saved from the wreck and sold into slavery by their rescuers. Mattidia is baptized. After the baptism Peter and the three brothers, having bathed in the sea, withdraw to a retired place for prayer. An old man in a workman's dress accosts them and undertakes to prove to them that prayer is useless, and that there is neither God nor Providence, but that all things are governed by astrological fate (genesis). A set disputation takes place and occupies bks. viii. ix.; the 3 brothers, being well trained in Grecian philosophy, successively argue on the side of Providence, and discuss the evidence for astrology. The discussion is closed by a dramatic surprise. When all the old man's other difficulties have been solved, he undertakes to produce a conclusive argument from his own experience. His own wife had been born under a horoscope which compelled her to commit adultery, and to end her days by water in foreign travel. And so it turned out. She had been guilty of adultery with a slave, as he had learned on his brother's testimony, and afterwards leaving Rome with her twin sons on account of a pretended vision, had perished miserably by shipwreck. Peter has now the triumph of fully reuniting the family and gaining a victory in the discussion, by shewing the complete falsification of the astrological prediction. From the account given by Rufinus, it would seem that one of the forms of the Recognitions known to him closed here; but in the tenth book as we have it, the story is prolonged by discourses intended to bring Faustinianus to a hearty reception of Christianity. After this Simon is again brought on the stage. He has been very successful at Antioch in shewing wonders to the people and stirring up their hatred against Peter. One of Peter's emissaries, in order to drive him to flight, prevails on Cornelius the centurion, who had been sent on public business to Caesarea, to give out that he had been commissioned to seek out and destroy Simon, in accordance with an edict of the emperor for the destruction of sorcerers at Rome and in the provinces. Tidings of this are brought to Simon by a pretended friend, who is in reality a Christian spy. Simon, in alarm, flees to Laodicea, and there meeting Faustinianus, who had come to visit their common friends, Apion (or, as our author spells it, Appion) and Anubion, transforms by his magic the features of Faustinianus into his own, that Faustinianus may be arrested in his stead. But Peter, not being deceived by the transformation, turns it to the greater discomfiture of Simon. For he sends Faustinianus to Antioch, who, pretending to be Simon, whose form he bore, makes a public confession of imposture, and testifies to the divine mission of Peter. After this, when Simon attempts again to get a hearing in Antioch, he is driven away in disgrace. Peter is received then with the greatest honour and baptizes Faustinianus, who has meanwhile recovered his own form.

We turn now to the story as told in the Homilies. The opening is identical with that of the Recognitions, except for one small variation. Clement, instead of meeting Barnabas in Rome, has been induced by an anonymous Christian teacher to sail for Palestine; but being driven by storms to Alexandria, there encounters Barnabas. It is not easy to say which form is the original. On the one hand, the account that Clement is delayed from following Barnabas by the necessity of collecting money due to him is perfectly in place if the scene is laid at Rome, but not so if Clement is a stranger driven by stress of weather to Alexandria. The author, who elsewhere shews Alexandrian proclivities, may have wished to honour that city by connecting Barnabas with it; or was perhaps unwilling that Peter should be preceded by another apostle at Rome. On the other hand, the rabble which assails Barnabas is in both versions described as a mob of Greeks, and the fifteen days' voyage to Palestine corresponds better with Alexandria than with Rome. The narrative proceeds as in R. as far as the end of Peter's disputation with Simon at Caesarea; but both Peter's preliminary instructions to Clement and the disputation itself are different. In H. Peter prepares Clement by teaching him his secret doctrine concerning difficulties likely to be raised by Simon, the true solution of which he could not produce before the multitude. Simon would bring forward texts which seemed to speak of a plurality of Gods, or which imputed imperfection to God, or spoke of Him as changing His purpose or hardening men's hearts and so forth; or, again, which laid crimes to the charge of the just men of the law, Adam and Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. In public it would be inexpedient to question the authority of these passages of Scripture, and the difficulty must be met in some other way. But the true solution is that the Scriptures have been corrupted; and all those passages which speak against God are to be rejected as spurious additions. Although this doctrine is represented as strictly esoteric, it is reproduced in the public discussion with Simon which immediately follows. This disputation in H. is very short, the main conflict between Peter and Simon being reserved for a later stage of the story. It is here stated, however, that this disputation at Caesarea lasted three days, although only the subjects treated on the first day are mentioned. We have next a great variation between H. and R. According to H., Simon, vanquished in the disputation, flies to Tyre, and Nicetas, Aquila, and Clement are sent forward by Peter to prepare the way for him. There they meet Apion, and a public disputation on heathen mythology is held between Clement and Apion, the debate going over many of the topics treated of in the tenth book of R. On Peter's arrival at Tyre, Simon flies on to Tripolis, and thence also to Syria on Peter's continuing the pursuit. We have, as in R., discourses delivered to the heathen at Tripolis, and the story of the discovery of Clement's family is in the main told as in R., with differences in detail to be noticed presently. In H., the main disputation between Peter and Simon takes place after the recognitions, and is held at Laodicea, Clement's father (whose name according to H. is Faustus) acting as judge. The last homily contains explanations given by Peter to his company after the flight of Simon; and concludes with an account similar to that in R., of the transformation of Clement's father.

To this analysis must be added an account of the prefatory matter. Neither the Latin nor Syriac version of the Recognitions translates any preface; but Rufinus mentions having found in his original a letter of Clement to James, which he does not prefix, because, as he says, it is of later date and he had translated it elsewhere. The remark about later date need not imply any doubt of its genuineness, but merely that the letter, which purports to have been written after the death of Peter, is not rightly prefixed to discourses which claim to have been written some years previously. The letter itself is preserved in the MSS. of the Homilies, and gives an account of Peter's ordination of Clement as his successor at Rome, and closes with instructions to Clement to send to James an abstract of Peter's discourses. The work that follows purports to contain an abridgment of discourses already more fully sent to James; and is given the title: |An epitome by Clement of Peter's discourses during his sojournings| (epidemion kerugmaton). The Homilies contain another preface in the form of a letter from Peter himself to James. In this no mention is made of Clement, but Peter himself sends his discourses to James, strictly forbidding their indiscriminate publication, and charging him not to communicate them to any Gentile, nor even to any of the circumcised, except after a long probation, and the later ones only after such an one had been tried and found faithful with regard to the earlier. Subjoined is an oath of secrecy to be taken by those to whom the writings shall be communicated. Examination shews that the letter of Clement cannot belong to the Homilies; for its account of Clement's deprecation of the dignity of the episcopate, and of the charges given to him on his admission to it, are in great measure identical with what is related in the 5th homily, in the case of the ordination of Zacchaeus at Caesarea. These are omitted from the story as told in the Recognitions. The inference follows that the letter of Clement is the preface to the Recognitions. Thus, according to the conclusion we form on other grounds as to the relative priority of the two forms, either R., when prefixing his account of Clement's ordination, transposed matter which the older document had contained in connexion with Zacchaeus, or H., when substituting for the letter of Clement a letter in the name of Peter himself, found in Clement's letter matter which seemed too valuable to be wasted, and therefore worked it into the account of the first ordination related in the story, that of Zacchaeus. The letter of Peter thus remains as the preface either to the Homilies or to the earlier form of the work before the name of Clement had been introduced. On the question of relative priority it may be urged that it is more likely that a later writer would remove a preface written in the name of Clement, in order to give his work the higher authority of Peter, than that the converse change should be made; and also that the strong charges to secrecy and to the communication of the work in successive instalments would be accounted for, if we suppose that at the time of the publication of the Homilies another version of Peter's discourses had been in circulation, and that the writer was anxious to offer some account why what he produced as the genuine form of the discourses should not have been earlier made known. Respecting this relative priority there has been great diversity of opinion among critics: Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and Uhlhorn give the priority to H., Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to R.; Lehmann holds R. to be the original for the first three books, H. in the later part. Lipsius regards both as independent modifications of a common original. Without speaking over-confidently, our own conclusion is, that while neither of the existing documents can claim to be the original form, they are not independent; that H. is the later and in all that relates to Clement's family history has borrowed from R. Probably the original form contained little but discourses, and was probably an esoteric document, in use only among the Ebionites; and the author of R. may have added to it the whole story of Clement's recovery of his parents, at the same time fitting the work for popular use by omitting or softening down the harshest parts of its Ebionitism; and finally, H., a strong Ebionite, may have restored some of the original discourses, retaining the little romance which no doubt had been found to add much to the popularity and attractiveness of the volume. The following are some of the arguments which prove that H. is not an original.

(1) The story of Clement's first recognition of his family is told in exactly the same way in R. book 7, and in H. book 12. Clement, anxious to be permitted to join himself permanently as travelling companion to Peter, reminds him of words used at Caesarea: how Peter had there invited those to travel with him who could do so with piety, that is, without deserting wife, parents, or other relations whom they could not properly leave. Clement states that he is himself one thus untrammelled, and he is thus led to tell the story of his life. These words of Peter, to which both R. and H. refer, are to be found only in R. (iii.71), not in H. It has been stated that the ordination of Zacchaeus at Caesarea is told fully in H., and only briefly in R. In recompense R. has a long section describing the grief of the disciples at Peter's departure and the consolations which he addressed to them; all this is compressed into a line or two in H. It is matter which any one revising R. would most naturally cut out as unimportant and uninteresting; but we see that it contains words essential in the interests of the story, and can hardly doubt that these words were introduced with a view to the use subsequently made of them. This instance not only shews, as Lehmann admits, that H. is not original in respect of the: Caesarean sections, but still more decisively refutes Lehmann's own hypothesis that it was H. who ornamented an originally simpler story with the romance of the recognitions. Either the author of that romance, as is most probable, was also the author of Peter's Caesarean speech, which has little use except as a preparation for what follows; or else, finding that speech in an earlier document, used it as a connecting link to join on his own addition. In either case he must have been fully alive to its importance, and it is quite impossible that he could have left it out from his version of the story. Moreover, of the two writers H. and R., H. is the one infinitely less capable of inventing a romance. Looking at the whole work as a controversial novel, it is apparent all through that H. feels most interest in the controversy, R. in the novel.

(2) Further, in the same section in the passage common to H. and R., Peter sends on Nicetas and Aquila to prepare the way for his coming. He apologizes for parting company with them, and they express grief at the separation, but console themselves that is it only for two days. On their departure Clement says, |I thank God that it was not I whom you sent away, as I should have died of grief.| Then follows the request that Peter would accept him as his inseparable companion. This is all consistent as told by R.; for these regrets are expressed on the first occasion that any of the three brothers is removed from personal attendance on Peter. But as H. tells the story, Peter had already sent on Clement, while still unbaptized, together with Nicetas and Aquila, to Tyre, where they hold a disputation with Apion. There is not a word of grief or remonstrance at the separation for more than a week, and it is therefore strange that subsequently there should be so much regret at a two days' parting. It is plain that H. has interpolated the mission to Tyre; but failed to notice that he ought in consistency to have modified some of the next portion of R. which he retained. This disputation with Apion has been alleged as a proof of the priority of H., for Apion is introduced also into R., but only as a silent character; and it is urged that the original form is more likely to be that in which this well-known adversary of Judaism conducts a disputation, than that in which he is but an insignificant companion of Simon. But this argument does not affect the relative priority of H. and R., whatever weight it may have in proving R. not original. Eusebius (iii.38) mentions a long work ascribed to Clement, and then but recently composed (as he infers from not having seen it quoted by any earlier writer), containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. This description may be intended for the Homilies; but may refer to a still earlier work. There are expressions in R. which seem to imply that the writer believed himself to be making an improvement in substituting for Peter as a disputant against heathenism, persons whose early training had been such as to give them better knowledge of heathen mythology and philosophy.

(3) The story of Clement's recognition of his brothers contains plain marks that H. has abridged R. According to R., Nicetas and Aquila, seeing a strange woman return with Peter and Clement, ask for an explanation. Peter then repeats fully the story of the adventures of Clement's mother. Nicetas and Aquila listen in silence until Peter describes the shipwrecked mother searching for her children and crying, |Where are my Faustus and Faustinus?| then, hearing their own names mentioned, they start up in amaze and say, |We suspected at the first that what you were saying might relate to us; but yet as many like things happen in different persons' lives, we kept silence; but when you came to the end and it was entirely manifest that your statements referred to us, then we confessed who we were.| H. avoids what seems the needless repetition of an already-told story, and only states in general terms that Peter recounted Mattidia's history; but the amazed starting-up of the brothers, and their words, are the same as in R.; while, as the incident of the mention of their former names is omitted, it is in this version not apparent why the conclusion of Peter's speech brought conviction to their minds. Evidently H., in trying to shorten the narrative by clearing it of repetition, has missed a point in the story.

(4.) As told above, in R. the recognition of Clement's father crowns a disputation on astrological fate. In H. the whole story is spoiled. An old man accosts Peter, as in R., and promises to prove from his personal history that all things are ruled by the stars; but nothing turns on this. The recognition takes place in consequence of a chance meeting of Faustinianus with his wife, and has no relation to the subject he undertakes to discuss with Peter. The obvious explanation is, that H. has copied the introduction from R.; but omits the disputation because he has already anticipated it, having put the argument for heathenism into the mouth of the eminent rhetorician Apion, who seemed a fitter character to conduct the disputation than the unknown Faustinianus. Further H. (xx.15) and R. (x.57) both state that the magical transformation of Clement's father takes place on the same day that he had been recognized by his family. This agrees with the story as told by R.; but H. had made five days' disputation intervene between the recognition and the transformation. Thus in the account of each of the three sets of recognitions there is evidence that H. copied either from R. or from a writer who tells the story exactly as R. does; and the former hypothesis is to be preferred because there is no evidence whatever of R.'s non-originality in this part of his task.

(5) We have seen that in H. there are two disputations of Simon with Peter, viz. at Caesarea and at Laodicea. There is decisive proof that in this H. has varied from the original form, which, as R. does, laid the scene of the entire disputation at Caesarea. The indications here, however, point to a borrowing not from R. but from a common original. H. does relate a disputation at Caesarea, but evidently reserves his materials for use further on, giving but a meagre sketch of part of one day's dispute, while he conscientiously follows his authority and relates that the dispute lasted three days. Afterwards at Laodicea the topics brought forward in the earlier discussion are produced as if new. Simon, e.g., expresses the greatest surprise at Peter's manner of disposing of the alleged spurious passages of the Pentateuch, although exactly the same line of argument had been used by Peter on the former occasion. The phenomenon again presents itself (H. xviii.21) of a reference to former words of Peter which are not to be found in H. itself, but are found in R. ii.45. Lastly, in the disputation at Laodicea, the office of summoning Peter to the conflict is ascribed to Zacchaeus, in flagrant contradiction of the previous story, according to which Zacchaeus was the leading man of the church at Caesarea before Peter's arrival, and had been left behind as its bishop on Peter's departure. This alone is enough to shew that H. is copying from an original, in which the scene is laid at Caesarea. It may be added that the Apostolic Constitutions make mention only of a Caesarean disputation.

(6) It has been stated that the last homily contains private expositions by Peter to his disciples, and these can clearly be proved to be an interpolation. In R., after the disputation on |genesis| in which Clement's father is convinced, the party having returned home and being about to sit down to meat, news comes of the arrival of Apion and Anubion and Faustinianus goes to salute them. In H. the party have retired to rest, and Peter wakes them up in the middle of the night to receive his instructions; yet in the middle of this midnight discourse we have an account, almost verbally agreeing with R., of the news of the arrival of Apion coming just as they were about to sit down to meat, and the consequent departure of Clement's father. The discourse, thus clearly shewn to be an interpolation, contains H.'s doctrine concerning the devil, and is in such close connexion with the preceding homily (which relates how Peter, in his Laodicean disputation, dealt with the problem of the permission of evil in the universe) that this also must be set down as an addition made by H. to the original story. We can see why H. altered the original account of a Caesarean disputation -- namely, that he wished to reserve as the climax of his story, the solutions which he put into Peter's mouth of the great controversy of his own day.

(7) In section H. ii.19-32, which contains the information given by Nicetas and Aquila concerning Simon, there are plain marks that H. is not original. Nicetas, in repeating a conversation with Simon, speaks of himself in the third person: |Nicetas answered,| instead of |I answered.| In the corresponding section of R., Aquila is the speaker, and the use of the third person is correct. Yet this matter, in which H. is clearly not original, is so different from R., that we conclude that both copied from a common original. One instance in this section, however, deserves to be mentioned as an apparent case of direct copying from R. In H. ii.22, Simon is represented as teaching that the dead shall not rise, and as rejecting Jerusalem and substituting Mount Gerizim for it; but nowhere else is there a trace of such doctrine being ascribed to Simon; and no controversy on these subjects is reported in the Homilies. There is strong reason for suspecting that H. has here blundered in copying R. i.57, where a Samaritan, whom there is no ground for identifying with Simon, is introduced as teaching these doctrines of the non-resurrection of the dead, and of the sanctity of Mount Gerizim.

We turn to some of the reasons why R. must also be regarded as the retoucher of a previously existing story. The work itself recognizes former records of the things which it relates. In the preface it purports to be an account written after the death of Peter of discourses, some of which had by Peter's command been written down and sent to James during his own lifetime. R. iii.75 contains an abstract of the contents of ten books of these previously-sent reports. Again, R. v.36, we are told of the dispatch to James of a further instalment. Everything confirms the conclusion that R. is here using the credit which an existing narrative had gained, in order to obtain acceptance for his own additions to the story. Moreover, as we have seen, there are instances in the first division of the work where H. is clearly not original, and yet has not copied from R.; whence we infer the existence of an independent authority, at least for the earlier portion, employed by both writers. There are places where H. and R. seem to supplement one another, each supplying details omitted by the other; other places where it would seem as if an obscure passage in the common original had been differently understood by each; and in the discourses common to both, there are places where the version presented by H. preserves so much better the sequence of ideas and the cogency of argument that it is scarcely possible to think the form in R. the original (cf. esp. H. ix.9, 10, R. iv.15, 16). There are places, again, where both seem to have abridged the common original. Thus R. mentions concerning an early conversation, that none of the women were present. There is no further mention of women in the party until quite late in the story both H. and R. incidentally speak of Peter's wife as being in the company. In may be noted in passing that they do not represent Peter and his wife as living together as married people; but Peter always sleeps in the same room with his disciples. We may conjecture that the original contained a formal account of the women who travelled with Peter, and this is confirmed by St. Jerome, who refers to a work called the circuits of Peter (periodoi) as mentioning not only Peter's wife, but his daughter, of whom nothing is said either by H. or R. The work cited by Jerome contained a statement that Peter was bald, which is not found either in H. or R. In like manner we may infer that the original contained a formal account of the appointment of 12 precursors (proodoi) who were to go before Peter to the different cities which he meant to visit. H. several times speaks of the precursors, assuming the office to be known to the reader, but without ever recording its appointment. R. does give an account of its appointment, but one which implies that Peter had come attended by 12 companions, of whom Clement was already one. We have already mentioned inconsistencies in this first section from which we infer, that though the original form of the story mentioned the name of Clement, the introduction containing the account of Clement's journey from Rome is a later addition.

We conclude that the work cited by Jerome is the common original of H. and R.; and a comparison of the matter common to the two shews that both pretty freely modified the original to their own uses. From what has been said concerning H. under No.7, we infer that the original contained mention both of Clement and of Nicetas and Aquila, and it is likely that Clement was there too represented as the recorder of the discourses. The original must have contained an account of a three days' disputation with Simon held at Caesarea; it also included the polemic against heathenism contained in the Tripolis discourses, as may be inferred both from R. v.36 and also from a comparison of the two records of these discourses. It is likely that the same work contained the disputation of Peter and Apion referred to by Eusebius, and that H. followed the original in making Apion a speaking character, although he has been involved in confusion in trying to combine this with the additional matter imported by R. We may conjecture too (see R. x.52) that it also contained a disputation by Anubion on the subject of |genesis.| On the other hand, there is no evidence that the original contained anything concerning the recognitions by Clement of the members of his family. In this part of the story R. makes no acknowledgment of previous accounts sent to James; and he shews every sign of originality and of having carefully gone over the old story, skilfully adapting it so as to join on his own additions. It appears from H. ii.22, 26, that in quite an early part of the history the original introduced Nicetas and Aquila as addressing their fellow-disciple Clement as |dearest brother,| and this probably gave R. the hint (see R. viii.8) of representing them as natural brothers. R. omits these expressions in the place where they are inappropriate. A question may be raised whether the document referred to in R. iii.75, and which contained an account of the disputation with Simon, was part of the same work as that referred to in v.36, which contained the disputation against the heathen. We have marked them as probably different. It may be remarked that Peter's daily bath, carefully recorded in the later books, is not mentioned in the three earlier. A question may be raised whether the original did not contain an account of a meeting of Simon and Peter at Rome; and it is not impossible that such an account may have been originally designed by the author; as one or two references to Rome as well as the choice of Clement as the narrator give cause to suspect. But that in any case the design was not executed appears both from the absence of any early reference to a Roman contest between Simon and Peter; and also from the diversity of the accounts given as to the manner of Simon's death, since we may believe that if the document we are considering had related the story, its version would have superseded all others.

Quite a different impression as to relative originality is produced when we compare the doctrine of H. and R., and when we compare their narratives. The doctrine of H. is very peculiar, and, for the most part, consistently carried through the whole work; in R. the deviations from ordinary church teaching are far less striking, yet there are passages in which the ideas of H. can be traced, and which present the appearance of an imperfect expurgation of offensive doctrine. In H., Judaism and Christianity are represented as identical, and it is taught to be enough if a man recognize the authority either of Christ or of Moses; in R. he is required to acknowledge both. On this point, however, H. is not consistent; for in several places he agrees with R. in teaching the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation. H. rejects the rite of sacrifice altogether; according to R. the rite was divinely permitted for a time until the true prophet should come, who was to replace it by baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins. With respect to the authority of O.T. alleged for the rite of sacrifice, and for certain erroneous doctrines, H. rejects the alleged passages as falsified; R. regards them merely as obscure, and liable to be misunderstood by one who reads them without the guidance of tradition. The inspiration of the prophets later than Moses is denied by H. and admitted by R., though quotations from their writings are alike rare in both forms. According to H., the true prophet has presented himself in various incarnations, Adam, who is regarded as being identical with Christ, being the first and Jesus the last; and the history of Adam's sin is rejected as spurious; according to R., Christ has but revealed Himself to and inspired various holy men of old. And, in general, concerning the dignity and work of our Lord, the doctrine of R., though short of orthodox teaching, is far higher than that of H. The history of the fall, as far, at least, as regards the temptation of Eve, is referred to by R. as historical; but concerning Adam there are intimations of an esoteric doctrine not fully explained. H. gives what may be called a physical theory of the injury done by demons. They are represented as having sensual desires, which, being spirits, they can gratify only by incorporation with human bodies. They use therefore the permission which the divine law grants them, of entering into the bodies of men who partake of forbidden food, or who, by worshipping them, subject themselves to their power; and with these the union is so close, that after death, when the demons descend to their natural regions of fire, the souls united to them are forced to accompany them, though grievously tormented by the element in which the demon feels pleasure. The opposition between fire and light is much dwelt on; and again, the water of baptism and other ablutions is represented as having a kind of physical efficacy in quenching the demonic fire. All this doctrine concerning demons shews itself comparatively faintly in R.; yet there seem indications that the doctrine as expounded in H., was contained in the original on which R. worked. It is natural to think that the earlier form is that one of which the doctrine is most peculiar; the later, that in which the divergences from orthodox teaching are smoothed away. Yet it is not always true that originality implies priority; and the application of this principle has caused some of the parts of H. which can be shewn to be the most recent, to be accepted as belonging to the original. For instance, we have seen that the private conversation between Peter and his disciples in the 20th homily bears on the face of it marks of interpolation; yet the clearness and peculiarity of its doctrine have caused it to be set down as belonging to the most ancient part of the work. The same may be said of the section concerning philanthropy at the end of the 12th homily, which, however, is wanting in the Syriac, and may be reasonably set down as one of the most modern parts. For it is an addition made by H. to the story of the recognitions as told by R.; and we have already shewn that in all that relates to the recognitions H. is more recent than R. We arrive at more certain results, if, examining the sections we have named, and for which H. is most responsible, we try to discover his favourite thoughts and forms of expression, and so to recognize the hand of the latest reviser in other parts of the work. Space will not permit such an examination here; but we may notice the fondness of H. for discovering a male and female element in things, and for contrasting things under the names of male and female. The almost total absence of the idea from R. makes it unlikely that it could have had any great prominence in the original document. The idea, however, became very popular in the sect to which H. belonged; and is noticed by a writer of the 10th cent. as a characteristic of some Ebionites then still remaining (see Hilgenfeld, N. T. Extra Can. Recept. iii.156). The germ, however, of the distinction between male and female prophecy, on which H. lays so much stress, was apparently in the original document, which disposed of the testimony borne by our Lord to John the Baptist by the distinction that John was the greatest of the prophets born of women, but not on the level of the Son of Man. The general result of an attempt to discriminate what belongs to H. and R. respectively, from what they found in their common original, leads to the belief that H., far more nearly than R., represents the doctrinal aspect of the original, from which the teaching of H. differs only by legitimate development.

The Clementines are unmistakably a production of that sect of Ebionites which held the book of Elkesai as sacred. For an account of the sources whence our knowledge of this book is derived, and for the connexion of the sect with Essenism, see Elkesai in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). Almost all the doctrines ascribed to them are to be found in the Clementines -- e.g. the doctrine of successive incarnations of Christ, and in particular the identification of Christ with Adam, the requirement of the obligations of the Mosaic Law, the rejection however of the rite of sacrifice, the rejection of certain passages both of O.T. and N.T., hostility to St. Paul, abstinence from flesh (H. viii.15, xii.6, xv.7), the inculcation of repeated washing, discouragement of virginity, concealment of their sacred books from all but approved persons, form of adjuration by appeal to the seven witnesses, ascription of gigantic stature to the angels (H. viii.15), permission to dissemble the faith in time of persecution (R. i.65, x.55); while again the supposed derivation of the book of Elkesai from the Seres is explained by R. viii.48, where the Seres are described as a nation by whom all the observances on which the Ebionites laid stress were naturally kept, and who were consequently exempt from the penalties of sickness and premature death which attended their neglect. Ritschl regards the book of Elkesai as an exposition of these doctrines later than the Homilies; but we are disposed to look on it as earlier than the work which formed the common basis of H. and R. A recognition of this book is not improbably contained in a passage which is important in reference to the use made by H. and R. of their common original. The date which the book of Elkesai claimed for itself was the third year of Trajan. Whether it actually were so old need not here be inquired, but the fact that it was confessedly no older might seem to put it at a disadvantage in comparison with the Pauline system which it rejected. But its adherents defended their position by their doctrine of pairs -- viz. that it has been ever God's method to pair good and evil together, sending forth first the evil, then the countervailing good. Thus Cain was followed by Abel, Ishmael by Isaac, Esau by Jacob, so now, Simon Magus by Peter; and at the end of the world Antichrist will be followed by Christ. The penultimate pair enumerated takes, in the translation of Rufinus, a form scarcely intelligible; but the Syriac shews that the version given by R. did not essentially differ from that of H.; and that the contrasted pairs predicted by Peter are a false gospel sent abroad by a deceiver, and a true gospel secretly disseminated after the destruction of the holy place, for the rectification of the then existing heresies. It seems most probable that we are here to understand the doctrine of Paul and of Elkesai; and it may be noted that the fact, that, in this pair, gospels, not persons, are contrasted favours the conclusion that Hippolytus was mistaken in supposing Elkesai to be the name of a person. Two other of the contrasted pairs deserve notice: H. contrasts Aaron and Moses, R. the magicians and Moses. Again, H. contrasts John the Baptist and our Saviour, R. the tempter and our Saviour. In both cases the version of H. seems to be the original, since in that the law of the pairs is strictly observed that an elder is followed by a better younger; and we can understand R.'s motive for alteration if he did not share that absolute horror of the rite of sacrifice which ranked Aaron on the side of evil, or that hostility to John the Baptist which shews itself elsewhere in H., as, for example, in ranking Simon Magus among his disciples. There are passages in R. which would give rise to the suspicion that he held the same doctrines as H., but concealed the expression of them in a book intended for the uninitiated, for though in H. the principle of an esoteric doctrine is strongly asserted, the book seems to have been written at a later period, when concealment had been abandoned. However, the instance last considered is one of several, where R.'s suppression of the doctrinal teaching of his original seems to imply an actual rejection of it.

It remains to speak of that part of the Clementines to which attention has been most strongly directed by modern students of the early history of the church -- their assault on St. Paul under the mask of Simon Magus. In the first place it may be remarked that the school hostile to St. Paul which found expression in these Clementines cannot be regarded as the representative or continuation of the body of adversaries with whom he had to contend in his lifetime. Their connexion was with the Essenes, not the Pharisees; and they themselves claimed no earlier origin than a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which would seem to have induced many of the Essenes in some sort to accept Christianity. We have seen that a theory was devised to account for the lateness of the period when what professed to be the true gospel opposed to St. Paul's was published. It follows that whatever results can be obtained from the Clementines belong to the history of the 2nd cent., not the first. The name of Paul is mentioned neither by H. nor R. Hostility to him appears in R. in a milder form; R., plainly following his original, ignores St. Paul's labours among the heathen, and makes St. Peter the apostle of the Gentiles; and in one passage common to H. and R., and therefore probably belonging to the earlier document, a warning is given that the tempter who had contended in vain with our Lord would afterwards send apostles of deceit, and therefore the converts are cautioned against receiving any teacher who had not first compared his doctrine with that of James, lest the devil should send a preacher of error to them, even as he had raised up Simon as an opponent to Peter. It need not be disputed that in this passage, as well as in that concerning the pairs already quoted, Paul is referred to, his preaching being spoken of in the future tense as dramatic propriety required, since the action of the story is laid at a time before his conversion. In both places Paul, if Paul be meant, is expressly distinguished from Simon. In the letter of Peter prefixed to the Homilies, we cannot doubt that Paul is assailed as the enemy who taught that the obligations of the Mosaic law were not perpetual, and who unwarrantably represented Peter himself as concurring in teaching which he entirely repudiated. There remains a single passage as the foundation of the Simon-Paulus theory. In the Laodicean disputation which H. makes the climax of his story, a new topic is suddenly introduced (xvii.13-20), whether the evidence of the senses or that of supernatural vision be more trustworthy; and it is made to appear that Simon claims to have obtained, by means of a vision of Jesus, knowledge of Him superior to that which Peter had gained during his year of personal converse with Him. In this section phrases are introduced which occur in the notice of the dispute at Antioch, between Peter and Paul, contained in the Ep. to the Galatians. It need not be doubted, then, that in this section of the Homilies the arguments nominally directed against Simon are really intended to depreciate the claims of Paul. Since von Cölln and Baur first took notice of the concealed object of this section, speculation in Germany has run wild on the identification of Paul and Simon. The theory in the form now most approved will be found in the article on Simon Magus in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon. It has been inferred that Simon was in Jewish circles a pseudonym for Paul, and that all related of him is but a parody of the life of Paul. Simon as a historical character almost entirely disappears. Even the story told in the Acts of the Apostles has been held to be but a caricature of the story of Paul's bringing up to Jerusalem the collection he had made, and hoping by this gift of money to bribe the apostles to admit him to equal dignity. In order to account for the author of the Acts admitting into his narrative the section concerning Simon, explanations have been given which certainly have not the advantage in simplicity over that suggested by the work itself -- viz. that the author having spent seven days in Philip's house had learned from him interesting particulars of his early evangelical work, which he naturally inserted in his history. The Simon-Paulus theory has been particularly misleading in speculations as to the literary history of the tales concerning Simon. Lipsius, for instance, has set himself to consider in what way the history of Simon could be told, so as best to serve the purpose of a libel on Paul; and having thus constructed a more ingenious parody of Paul's life than any which documentary evidence shews to have been ever in circulation, he asks us to accept this as the original form of the story of Simon. It becomes necessary, therefore, to point out on how narrow a basis of fact these speculations rest. To R., anti-Pauline though he is, the idea of identifying Simon with St. Paul seems never to have occurred. All through his book Paul is Paul, and Simon Simon. The same may be said of the whole of the Homilies, except this Laodicean disputation, which is the part in which the latest writer has taken the greatest liberties with his original. Before any inference can be drawn from this section as to an early identification of Simon and Paul, it must be shewn that it belongs to the original document, and is not an addition of the last reviser only. The object of the latter may be inferred from what he states in the form of a prediction (xvi.21), that other heretics would arise who should assert the same blasphemies against God as Simon; which we may take as implying that the writer has put into the mouth of Simon doctrines similar to those held by later heretics against whom he had himself to contend. In particular, this Laodicean section is strongly anti-Marcionite; and it is just possible that this section may have been elicited by Marcionite exaggeration of the claims of Paul. But we own, it seems to us far more probable that H. has here preserved a fragment of an earlier document, the full force of which it is even possible he did not himself understand. Further, it is altogether unproved that in this earlier document this particular disputation was directed against Simon. The original work may well have included conflicts of St. Peter with other adversaries, and in another instance we have seen reason to think that H. has made a mistake in transferring to Simon words which in the earlier document referred to another. Again, even if the earlier writer did put Pauline features into his picture of Simon, it no more follows that he identified Simon with St. Paul than that the later writer identified him with Marcion. The action of the story being laid at a date antecedent to St. Paul's conversion, it was a literary necessity that if Pauline pretensions were to be refuted, they must be put into the mouth of another. At the present day history is often written with a view to its bearing on the controversies of our own time; but we do not imagine that a writer doubts Julius Caesar to be a historical character, even though in speaking of him he may have Napoleon Bonaparte in his mind. Now, though the author of the Clementines has put his own words into the mouth both of Simon and Peter, it is manifest that he no more doubted of the historical character of one than of the other. For Simon, his authorities were -- (1) the account given in Acts viii. which furnished the conception of Simon as possessed of magical powers; (2) in all probability the account given by Justin Martyr of honours paid to Simon at Rome; and (3) since R. refers to the writings of Simon, it can scarcely be doubted that the author used the work ascribed to Simon called the Great Announcement, some of the language of which, quoted by Hippolytus, is in the Clementines put into the mouth of Simon. Hence has resulted some little confusion, for the heresy of the Great Announcement appears to have been akin to the Valentinian; but what the Clementine author has addled of his own is Marcionite.

Quotations from N.T. in the Clementines. -- All the four gospels are quoted; for since the publication of the conclusion of the Homilies by Dressel, it is impossible to deny that St. John's gospel was employed. Epiphanius tells us that a Hebrew translation of St. John's gospel was in use among the Ebionites. The quotations are principally from St. Matthew, but often with considerable verbal differences from our present text; and there are a few passages quoted which are not found in any of our present gospels. The deviations from the existing text are much smaller in R. than in H., and it may be asserted that R. always conforms to our present gospels in his own added matter. Since it is known that the Ebionites used an Aramaic gospel, which in the main agreed with St. Matthew but with considerable variations, we may conclude that this was the source principally employed by the author of the original. H. seems to have used the same sources as the original; but yet two things must be borne in mind before we assert that variations in H. from our existing texts prove that he had a different text before him: one is the laity with which he cites the O.T.; the other, the fact that the story demands that Peter should be represented as quoting our Lord's discourses from memory and not from any written source; and the author would naturally feel himself entitled to a certain amount of licence in quotations of such a kind.

Place and Time of Composition of the Clementine Writings. -- The use made of the name of Clement had caused Rome to be accepted as the place of composition by the majority of critics, but the opposite arguments urged by Uhlhorn appear conclusive, and to, at least, the original document an Eastern origin must be assigned. Hippolytus mentions the arrival in Rome of an Elkesaite teacher c. a.d.220, whose doctrines would seem to have been then quite novel at Rome, and not to have taken root there. The scene of the story is all laid in the East, and the writings shew no familiarity with the Roman church. The ranking Clement among the disciples of Peter may be even said to be opposed to the earliest traditions of the Roman church, which placed Clement third from the apostles; but it is quite intelligible that in foreign churches, where the epistle of Clement was habitually publicly read in the same manner as the apostolic epistles, Clement and the apostles might come to be regarded as contemporaries. Clement might naturally be chosen as a typical representative of the Gentile converts by an Ebionite who desired by his example to enforce on the Gentile churches the duty of obedience to the church of the circumcision. For all through it is James of Jerusalem, not Peter, who is represented as the supreme ruler of the churches. The author of the original document habitually used an Aramaic version of N.T.; and there are a few phenomena which make it seem not incredible that the original document itself may have been written in the same language. Uhlhorn's conjecture o! Eastern Syria as the place of composition seems not improbable. The Recognitions with the prefatory letter relating the ordination of Clement as bp. of Rome may, however, have been a version designed for Roman circulation. The data for fixing the time of composition are but scanty. The Recognitions are quoted by Origen (with, however, a division of books differing from the present form) c. a.d.230. This gives the latest limit for the publication of R. We may infer that the chronicle of Hippolytus a.d.235 recognizes the Ep. of Clement to James, since it counts Peter as first bp. of Rome, and places the episcopate of Clement at a time so early as to make his ordination by Peter possible. [[117]Clemens Romanus.] It is not unreasonable to date the Ep. of Clement to James at least a quarter of a cent. earlier, in order to allow time for its ideas to gain such complete acceptance at Rome. Irenaeus is ignorant of the episcopate of Peter, but ranks Clement as a contemporary of the apostles. It is likely, therefore, that he knew the work on which the Recognitions were founded, but not this later version. As a limit in the other direction we have the use of the name Faustus for one represented as a member of the imperial family, which points to a date late than the reign of Antoninus, whose wife, and whose daughter married to Marcus Aurelius, both bore the name of Faustina. A section (R. ix.17-29) is identical with a passage quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Ev.6, 10, as from the dialogues of Bardesanes. But the date of Bardesanes himself is uncertain. [[118]Bardesanes.] The date assigned by Eusebius in his chronicle for his activity, a.d.173, seems to need to be put later, because an authority likely to be better informed, the Chronicle of Edessa, with great particularity assigns for the date of his birth July 11, a.d.154. Further, the dialogue cited by Eusebius and by R. has been now recovered from the Syriac, and has been published in Cureton's Spicilegium Syriacum (1855). From this it appears that the dialogue does not purport to be written by Bardesanes himself, but by a scholar of his, Philippus, who addresses him as father and is addressed by him as son. This forbids us to put the dialogue at a very early period of the life of Bardesanes, and R. may have been the earlier. Merx (Bardesanes von Edessa) tries to shew that other sections also in R. were later interpolations from Bardesanes; but his arguments have quite failed to convince us. On the whole, a.d.200 seems as near an approximation as we can make to the probable date of R. The form H. must be dated later, possibly a.d.218, the time when, according to Hippolytus, the Elkesaite Alcibiades came from Apamea to Rome. There is little to determine very closely the date of the original document. If we could lay stress on a passage which speaks of there being one Caesar (R. v.19, H. x.14), we should date it before a.d.161, when Marcus Aurelius shared the empire with Verus; and though this argument is very far from decisive, there is nothing that actually forbids so early a date, though we could not safely name one much earlier.

The prolegomena of the earlier editors of the Clementines are collected in Migne's Patrologia. The most important monographs are von Cölln's article in Ersch and Gruber (1828), Schliemann, Die Clementinen (Hamburg, 1844); Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien (Jena, 1848); Uhlhorn, Die Homilien and Recognitionen des Clemens Romanus (Göttingen, 1854.); Lehmann, Die clementinische Schriften (Gotha, 1867). In these works will be found references to other sources of information. Baur has treated of the Clementines in several works: the section in Die christliche Gnosis, pp.300-414, may especially be mentioned. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, enters more largely into the subject of the Clementines in his first ed. See also Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanios and Die Quellen der Römischen Petrussage, and an interesting review by Lipsius of Lehmann's work in the Protestantische Kirchenzeitung (1869), pp.477-482. Cf. Lightfoot's Clement of Rome, part i. pp.99 ff. and 406 ff.; and Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.-Ch. Lit. p.212 ff.

[G.S.]

Cletus or Anacletus, bp. of Rome
Cletus or Anacletus, |le même que St. Clet, comme les savants en conviennent| (L'Art de vérif. les dates, i.218). Eusebius calls him Anencletus, and says that he was succeeded in the see of Rome by Clement in the twelfth year of Domitian, having himself sat there twelve years. According to this, his own consecration would have fallen in the first year of Domitian, or a.d.81; but it is variously dated by others (cf. Gieseler, E. H. § 32 with note 4, Eng. tr.). Eusebius indeed nowhere says that he succeeded Linus, or was the second bp. of Rome: yet he places him between Linus, whom he calls the first bishop, and Clement, whom he calls third. Other ancient authorities make Clement the first bishop (see Clinton, F. R. ii.399). Rohrbacher, on the strength of a list attributed to pope Liberius, places Clement after Linus, Cletus after Clement, and another pope named Anencletus after Cletus (E. H. iv.450). This Gieseler calls |the modern Roman view.| [But for this question of the succession of the Roman bishops, see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, part i. pp.201-345; of which Bp. Westcott says (Preface to Lightfoot), |Perhaps it is not too much to say that the question of the order of the first five bps. of Rome is now finally settled.|] Three spurious epistles have the name of Anacletus affixed to them in the Pseudo-Isidorian collection (Migne, Patr. cxxx.59 and seq.).

[E.S.FF.]

Clovis, king of the Salian Franks
Clovis (in the chroniclers Chlodovechus, etc., modern German Ludwig, modern French Louis), son of Childeric, one of the kings of the Salian Franks, born a.d.466, succeeded his father in 481 (Greg. Tur. ii.43). As soon as he reached manhood (486) he attacked Syagrius, |rex Romanorum| (Greg. ii.23), son of Aegidius, the isolated and independent representative of the Roman power in Gaul (Junghans, pp.22, 23). Syagrius was defeated, and Clovis advanced his territory from the Somme to the Seine, and afterwards to the Loire (Gesta Francorum, 14), was recognized as king by the former subjects of Syagrius (Greg. ii.27), and transferred his capital from Tournai to Soissons (Vita S. Remigii, ap. Bouquet, iii.377 E). Waitz (ii.60 n.) doubts this (see Junghans, p.34, n.3). Many wars and conquests followed (Greg. ii.27).

About a.d.492 Clovis married the Burgundian princess Clotilda, a Christian and a Catholic, and she is said to have made many attempts to convert her husband from idolatry (Greg. ii.29; Rückert, Culturgeschichte, i. pp.316, 317; Binding, Das Burgundisch-Romanische Reich, Leipz.1868, pp.111-114, doubts the value of Clotilda's work; Bornhak, Geschichte der Franken unter den Merovingern, Greifswald, 1863, pp.207, 208, magnifies it). What her entreaties could not effect the crisis of war brought about. During a battle Against the Alamanni (whether at Tolbiac or elsewhere, see Bornhak, p.209, note 2; Waitz, ii.65, note 2) the Franks were hard pressed, and beginning to yield. Clovis raised his eyes to heaven and invoked the aid of Christ. Forthwith the tide of battle turned, and the Alamanni fled. Remigius, at the instance of Clotilda, called on Clovis to fulfil his vow. |Gladly,| replied the king, |but I must first obtain the consent of my own people.| His warriors signified their assent in the well-known words, |Gods that die we cast away from us, the god that dies not, whom Remigius preaches, we are prepared to follow.| On Christmas Day, 496, Clovis, with his sisters Albofleda, a heathen, and Lantechild, an Arian, was baptized by Remigius at Rheims. |Gently, Sicambrian, bow down thy head, worship what thou hast hitherto destroyed, destroy what thou hast hitherto worshipped,| were the apt words of Remigius (Greg. ii.30, 31; Vita Rem. ap. Bouquet). How important this conversion was in the eyes of the Catholic world of the day may be seen from the letters of congratulation addressed to Clovis by Avitus, bp. of Vienne (Bouquet, iv.49), and by pope Anastasius, who wrote both to the king and to the bishops of Gaul (Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont. pp.624 and 634). Theodoric, the Ostrogothic king of Italy, was an Arian, though a tolerant one, but Euric, the Visigoth, had proclaimed himself militant and proselytizing (Fauriel, ii.28); the Burgundian and Vandal princes were also Arian. The majority of the population of Gaul was Catholic, and Clovis was the only Catholic prince. (On the relation of these Arian princes to their Catholic subjects, see Binding, pp.125 ff.) Whatever may have been his motives, and every variety has been attributed to him, from direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost (Rettberg,
Kirchengeschichte, i. pp.274, 275) to the coldest political calculation (Binding, pp.111-114), Clovis must have been aware that by his conversion to the Catholic faith he would make the majority of his own subjects firm in their allegiance, and the Roman subjects of the Arian princes in the south ill-affected towards their rulers. (An instance of such disaffection may be found in Greg. ii.36.) Nor can he have been ignorant of the political importance of the aid which he would get from the Catholic priesthood throughout Gaul. From this point, therefore, dates an increase of influence among the Roman population, the foundations were laid of a Roman nobility of office and intellect capable of superseding the old Teutonic nobility of race (Bornhak, pp.219-221). Thus, whilst from one point of view this was the |first step towards the world-historical union of Teutonic civilization with the Roman church| (Richter, p.36, note 6), on the other hand, a reaction of Roman civilization against its Teutonic conquerors now set in, and modern Latin France became possible. As an immediate consequence of the conversion, a body of Frankish warriors not yet converted joined Rachnachar (Vita Rem. ap. Bouquet, iii. p.377 C, D). Whether this was also a desertion of Clovis is doubtful (see Junghans, p.59). The conversion of the nation was not completed till long afterwards (see Waitz, ii.85, note 1; and Rettberg, pp.285-287). All questions connected with the conversion of Clovis are fully treated by Rückert, Culturgeschichte des Deutschen Volkes in der Zeit ales Uebergangs aus dem Heidenthum in das Christenthum (Leipz.1853-1854).

The next war of Clovis was with Burgundy, a.d.500. Gundobald, the uncle of Clotilda and murderer of her parents, was defeated at Dijon. Clovis annexed part of the Burgundian dominion, and gave the rest to Godegisel, another brother. Shortly afterwards Gundobald returned, expelled Godegisel, and apparently became reconciled to Clovis, for in 507 the Burgundians helped Clovis in his expedition against the Visigoths. (This alliance is not mentioned by Gregory, but see Binding, p.194, note 659; and Richter, p.41, note e.) Between 505 and 507 Clovis is said to have been inflicted with tedious illness (Vita Severini, Bouquet, iii.392 B); on his recovery he immediately issued his famous declaration of war against the Visigoths: |Verily it grieves my soul that these Arians should hold a part of Gaul; with God's help let us go and conquer them, and reduce their territory into our hands| (Greg. ii.37). From Paris Clovis marched through Orleans to Tours, gave strict orders for the protection of the Catholic church and its property (Ep. ap. Bouquet, iv.54), met and defeated the Visigoths at Voullon or Vouglé near Poictiers, and slew king Alaric with his own hand (Richter, p.40 notes and reff.). The winter of 507-508 Clovis spent at Bordeaux, carried off the Visigothic treasure from Toulouse, and reduced Angoulême and the surrounding territory before his return to Paris, which city henceforward he made his capital (Greg. ii.38). That the religious element was very powerful in this war (Rückert, i.324) is evident from the letter of Clovis to the bishops (Bouquet, l.c.), from the vain attempts which Alaric had made to confirm the allegiance of his Catholic and Roman subjects (Richter, p.39, note 2), and from what Cassiodorus (Var. iii. Ep.1-4) tells us of the negotiations before the war. Theodoric the Ostrogoth had proposed an alliance of the Arian German kings for the maintenance of peace; and when the Franks began to pursue their victories in a fresh campaign and laid siege to Arles, Theodoric interfered, sent an army under Ibbas, which defeated the Franks and relieved Arles, and eventually agreed to a peace, by which Provence was annexed by the Ostrogothic power, Septimania adhered to the Visigothic kingdom of Spain, and Clovis's conquest of Aquitaine was acknowledged (Binding, p.212 and note 731). We do not know whether Clovis joined personally in this Rhone campaign. No mention of it is made by Gregory. It was at Tours, on his return from Bordeaux in 508, that Clovis received a letter from the emperor Anastasius, |conferring upon him the consular dignity, from which time he was habitually called consul and Augustus| (|ab Anastatio Imperatore codicillos de consulatu accepit, et in basilicâ beati Martini tunicâ blateâ indutus est et chlamyde, imponens vertice diadema, . . . et ab eâ die tanquam consul et (al. 'aut') Augustus est vocitatus,| Greg. ii.38). Much discussion has taken place as to the exact meaning of this passage. The name of Clovis does not appear in the consular Fasti, but in the prologue to the Lex Salia he is entitled |proconsul| (Sybel, Jahrb. d. Alt. in Rheinl. iv. p.86). Again, the chlamys and the diadem are the insignia of the patriciate. Hence it has been assumed by many that what was conferred on Clovis was the proconsulate and the patriciate (Valesius, i.299; Richter, pp.40, 41; Junghans, pp.126-128). On the contrary, Waitz (ii.59-61) and others (e.g. Pétigny, ii.533; and Bornhak, pp.234, 235), adhering to the exact words of Gregory, maintain that it was the title of consul that was conferred on Clovis. The significance of the event itself is plain. Anastasius saw the value to the empire of the Frankish power as a counterpoise to the Ostrogothic. Clovis willingly accepted any title of honour by which he obtained a quasi-legal title in the eyes of his Roman subjects (cf. Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. i. note 3 on c. i.).

The well-known story of the vase of Soissons (Greg. ii.27) not only shews how ill Clovis brooked the liberty and equality of the other Frankish chiefs, but reveals the most unfavourable side of his character -- his deceitfulness. |Dolus,| however, if on the right side, is seldom an attribute of blame with the mediaeval chroniclers. The most discreditable deeds of this character attributed to Clovis are the machinations by which he subjected the other Frankish chiefs originally his equals, and brought about the unification of the Frankish empire. Thus he suggested the murder of his father to Sigebert, king of the Ripuarian Franks, and when the deed was done, himself took possession of the kingdom (Greg. ii.40). King Chararich was first imprisoned, and then put to death (ib.41; cf. c.27 clam feriri, of Syagrius), and likewise king Rachnachar of Cambrai and his two brothers (ib.42).

Early in 511 Clovis summoned a council of 32 bishops to Orleans (see Decrees ap. Sirmondi, Conc. Gall. i.177). Before the close of the year he died at the age of 45, and was buried at Paris in the church of the Apostles (afterwards St. Geneviève's) which he and Clotilda had built. He left four sons, Theodoric the eldest (illegitimate); Clodomir, Childebert, and Lothar, by Clotilda.

The only first-class original authority for the reign of Clovis is Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, ii.27-43, contained in the collections of Duchesne, vol. i.; and Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens, etc., vol. ii. (in the 3rd vol. of Bouquet are extracts from the lives of the saints relating to this reign. On the authority of Gregory see Löbell, Gregor von Tours and seine Zeit, pp.320 ff.; Monod, in the Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des hautes Etudes, part viii. (1872); and Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (3rd ed.1873), vol. i. pp.76-83. The best monograph on the subject of Clovis is Junghans, Geschichte der Frankischen Könige Childerich and Chlodovech (Göttingen, 1857). Cf. also G. Kurth, Hist. Poét. des Méroving. (Paris 1893); Prou, La Gaule Méroving. On the constitution of the kingdom of Clovis and its constitutional history, see Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, ii. pp.51-71; and G. Richter, Annalen d. Deutschen Geschichte im Mittelalter, i. pp.27-32 (1873).

[T.R.B.]

Coelestinus, commonly called Celestine, bp. of Rome Coelestinus, commonly called Celestine, 42nd bp. of Rome, succeeded Boniface I. on Sunday, Sept.10, 422, without any delay or contest. He was of Roman birth, the son of Priscus. In early life he had visited Milan during the episcopate of St. Ambrose. While deacon to Innocent, he had written a cordial letter to St. Augustine, who returned a suitable reply (Aug. Ep.192). Soon after his accession to the see of Rome, Celestine received a letter from Augustine (Ep.209) on the case of one Antony, bp. of Fussala, 40 miles from Hippo, who had gravely misconducted himself in his office, been compelled by a synod of bishops to leave Fussala, and had afterwards applied to Boniface for restoration. Augustine entreated Celestine not to impose on the people of Fussala, by aid of secular power, a prelate so unworthy. After this, the African bishops resolved no longer to allow appeals to Rome from their country; and when Celestine, apparently in 426, wrote to them in behalf of the priest Apiarius, a general council of Africa sent a reply begging Celestine to observe the Nicene rule (can.5) and not receive to communion those excommunicated by them. The African church thus claimed its right to decide its own causes. They pointed out that the Nicene council had ordered that all causes should be decided where they arose; nor could anyone |believe that our God will inspire a single individual with justice, and deny it to a large number of bishops sitting in council.| That persons should be sent from Rome to decide causes in Africa had been |ordained by no synod|; and they had proved to Celestine's predecessor, by authentic copies of Nicene canons, that such a claim was wholly baseless (Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. ad. fin.; Galland, Bibl. Patr. ix.289).

Celestine was zealous against Pelagianism, and constrained Coelestius, the companion of Pelagius, to leave Italy.

The affairs of eastern Illyricum occupied the attention of Celestine, as of his predecessors. This civil |diocese| was attached, politically, to the eastern empire; but the see of Rome had kept a hold over its churches by committing a sort of vicarial authority to the see of Thessalonica, which was its head. Thus Damasus is said to have made the bps. of Thessalonica his representatives. See Fleury, b. xviii. c.22. Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii.9, thinks this an over-statement; but at any rate, he observes, Siricius (who succeeded Damasus), and afterwards Innocent, gave a delegated authority to Anysius of Thessalonica. In a.d.421 a collision took place between the Roman bp. Boniface and Theodosius II., who |claimed the power of transferring to the bp. of Constantinople that superintendence over the bps. of Illyricum| which Rome had entrusted to Thessalonica (Fleury, xxiv.31). But Theodosius appears to have yielded the point; and Celestine having already |interposed| in behalf of an Illyrian bishop named Felix, who was |in peril of being crushed by factious accusers,| afterwards wrote (Cel. Ep.3) to Perigenes of Corinth and eight other prelates of eastern Illyricum, asserting his right, as successor of St. Peter, to a general oversight (|necessitatem de omnibus tractandi|), and directing his |beloved brethren| to refer all causes to his deputy, Rufus of Thessalonica, and not to consecrate bishops, nor hold councils, without the sanction of that bishop. |Dominentur nobis regulae,| writes Celestine, |non regulis dominemur; simus subjecti canonibus,| etc. But, says Tillemont significantly, |it is difficult to see how he practised this excellent maxim|; for by the sixth Nicene canon the Illyrian bishops would be subject to their several metropolitans and provincial synods (xiv.150).

Another letter from Celestine (Ep.4) was addressed, July 25, 428, |to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne, for the purpose of correcting several abuses| (Fleury, xxiv.56). Some bishops, he had learned, |surreptitiously| wore the philosophic |pallium,| with a girdle, by way of carrying out Luke xii.35. |Why not,| asks Celestine, |also hold lighted lamps and staves?| The text is to be understood spiritually. This sort of dress, he adds, may be retained by those who dwell apart; (monks), but there is no precedent for it in the case of bishops. |We ought to be distinguished from the people, not by dress, but by teaching; not by attire, but by conduct.| On other matters he comments. Some refuse to give absolution to penitents even at the hour of death: this is a barbarous |killing of the soul.| Some consecrate laymen to the episcopate. Let no one be consecrated until he has gone through all degrees of the ministry: he who would be a teacher must first be a disciple. In the appointment of bishops he said that the wishes of the flock must be respected: Nullus invitis detur episcopus. These words became the recognized expression of a great principle of church law.

With this letter may be compared a short one (Ep.5), written in 429, to urge the Apulian and Calabrian bishops to observe the canons, and not to gratify any popular wish for the consecration of a person who had not served in the ministry. (On this subject of per saltum consecrations, see Bingham, ii.10, 4 seq.)

In the same year (429) Germanus bp. of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes were sent into Britain to repress Pelagianism. Prosper, in his Chronicle, says that Celestine sent German to guide the Britons to Catholic faith. Constantius of Lyons, the biographer of German, whom Bede follows (H. E. i.17), says that German and Lupus were sent by a large synod of Gallic bishops. (Prosper was then in Gaul, and ere long became Celestine's secretary: Constantius wrote some sixty years later, but with full access to local information.) The accounts may be reasonably harmonized. In German's case there was probably a special commission from Celestine, in addition to that which emanated from the Gallican synod. In this way, apparently, Celestine, as Prosper afterwards wrote in another work (C. Collatorem, 21, al.24), |took pains to keep the Roman island Catholic.| It will be natural to consider next Celestine's proceedings in regard to Ireland, which, says Prosper, in the same sentence, he |made Christian.| Two years after the expedition of German he consecrated Palladius, and sent him to |the Scots, who believed in Christ,| i.e. to the Irish, |as their first bishop.| Such is Prosper's statement in his Chronicle. Palladius had but little success, and stayed in Ireland but a short time; and there is no sufficient evidence for associating the mission of his great successor, St. Patrick, with Celestine or with the see of Rome. (See Todd's Life of St. Patrick, pp.309 seq., 352, 387 etc.)

We now turn to the part which Celestine took in the great doctrinal controversy raised by Nestorius at Constantinople at the end of 428. Celestine (Ep.13) early in 429 received copies of controversial discourses said to be by Nestorius, and wrote on his own behalf, and on that of other Italian bishops, to Cyril of Alexandria, asking for information. [[119]Cyril.] Cyril purposely kept silence for a year; and before he wrote, Celestine had received from Nestorius himself, by the hands of a man of high rank, named Antiochus, copies of his discourses, with a letter, in which Nestorius speaks of certain exiled Pelagians resident in Constantinople; and then passes on to the controversy about the Incarnation, and describes his opponents as Apollinarians, etc. He wrote more than once again (Mansi, iv.1023), and another extant letter resumes the same topic.

Celestine caused the Nestorian discourses to be rendered into Latin; and meanwhile received a letter from Cyril, accompanied by other translations of these documents, made at Alexandria. Thus aided, Celestine formed his own opinion on their theological character, and summoned a synod of bishops at the beginning of Aug.430. We possess an interesting fragment of his speech on this occasion. |I remember that Ambrose of blessed memory, on the day of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, made the whole people sing to God with one voice --

'Veni, Redemptor gentium,

Ostende partum Virginis;

?Miretur omne saeculum;

?Talis decet partus Deum '|

(Ambros. Hymn 12; in Brev. Ambros. first vespers of Nativ.). |Did he say, 'Talis decet partus hominem'? So, the meaning of our brother Cyril, in that he calls Mary 'Theotokos,' entirely agrees with 'Talis decet partus Deum.' It was God Whom the Virgin, by her child-bearing, brought forth, through His power Who is full of omnipotence.| He proceeded to quote a passage from Hilary, and two shorter ones from Damasus (Mansi, iv.550; Galland, ix.304). The council's resolutions were expressed by Celestine in letters to Cyril and to Nestorius. The former (Ep.11) commends Cyril's zeal in a cause which is, in truth, that of |Christ our God|; and concludes by saying that unless Nestorius should, within ten days, condemn his own wicked doctrines by a written profession of the same faith, as to |the birth of Christ our God,| which is held by the Roman, by the Alexandrian, by the entire church, provision must be made for the see of Constantinople as if vacant, and Nestorius must be treated as one |separate from our body.| This letter was dated Aug.11, 430. Celestine wrote also to John, bp. of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Flavian of Philippi, and Rufus of Thessalonica (Ep.12). His meaning is evident: he is not professing to act as the sole supreme judge and oracle of Christendom, or as the mouthpiece of the Catholic church; he announces his resolution, in concert with the Alexandrian church, to break off all communion with the bp. of Constantinople, unless the latter retracted his heretical sentiments. Another letter was addressed to Nestorius himself (Ep.13): its point is contained in the observation, |You have been warned once, twice -- I now give you the third warning, according to the rule of St. Paul: if you wish to retain communion with myself and with the bp. of Alexandria, affirm what he affirms -- confess our faith.| Celestine also wrote (Ep.14) to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, exhorting the orthodox clergy to endure manfully, and to take example from St. Chrysostom and St. Athanasius.

For the events which followed the council of Rome, see Cyril. In Nov.430, when Theodosius had summoned an oecumenical council to meet at Ephesus at the coming Whitsuntide, and before the Roman and Alexandrian resolutions had been communicated to Nestorius, the latter wrote to Celestine that the best solution would be the adoption of the word |Christotokos,| although he did not object to |Theotokos,| if it were used so as not to imply |a confusion of natures.| In the spring of 431 Cyril wrote again to Celestine, asking what should be done if Nestorius having refused to retract at the summons of Rome and Alexandria -- were to retract at the coming synod. Celestine answered, May 7 (Ep.16), in a tone which exhibits him in a more favourable light than his great Alexandrian colleague, |I am anxious for the salvation of him who is perishing, provided that he is willing to own himself sick: if not, let our previous decisions stand.| Next day, May 8, Celestine wrote instructions for the three persons whom he was sending to represent him at the council (Ep.17). The substance was, |When you reach Ephesus, consult Cyril in everything, and do what he thinks best. But if the council should be over when you arrive, and Cyril gone to Constantinople (i.e. to consecrate a new bishop), you must go thither also, and present to the emperor the letter which you will be charged with for him. If you find matters still unsettled, you will be guided by circumstances as to the course which, in conjunction with Cyril, you should take.| On the same day Celestine wrote the most remarkable of his letters, that addressed to the council of Ephesus (Ep.18), which was afterwards read, first in Latin, then in a Greek translation, at the second sitting of the council (see Mansi, iv.1283). Celestine, citing Matt. xviii.20, adds, |Christ was present in the company of apostles when they taught what He had taught them. This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in common, for by right of inheritance are we bound to undertake this solicitude. Let us act now with a common exertion, that we may preserve what was entrusted to us and has been retained through succession from the apostles (per apostolicam successionem) to this very day.| Celestine then insists on those recollections of the pastoral epistles which the place of the council's meeting should inspire. |Idem locus, eadem causa. . . .| |Let us be unanimous, let us do nothing by strife or vainglory.| He reminds them of the words of St. Paul to the |episcopi| of Ephesus, Acts xx.28. It was on July 10 that the three deputies appeared in the council, Nestorius having been deposed on June 22; the council, as Firmus of Caesarea told the deputies, had |followed in the track| of Celestine's previous decision; but, it must be observed, after a full and independent examination of the evidence. The deputies on the next day heard the |acts| of the first session read, and then affirmed the sentence passed on Nestorius in that session, taking care to dwell on the dignity of the see of St. Peter, while Cyril was not less careful to refer to them as representing |the apostolic chair and the council of Western bishops.| The council wrote to Celestine as their |fellow-minister| (Ep.20), giving a narrative of events, and saying that they had read and affirmed the sentences formerly pronounced by him against the Pelagian heretics. They evidently regarded him as first in dignity among all bishops, but not as master or ruler of all; they |admire him for his far-reaching solicitude as to the interests of religion.| |It is your habit, great as you are, to approve yourself in regard to all things, and to take a personal interest in the defence of the churches.|

Nestorius, though sent away from Ephesus, had been allowed to live at his old home near Antioch. Celestine objected strongly to this and thought that Nestorius ought to be placed where he could have no opportunity of spreading his opinions. The birthplace of the Christian name is beset by a pestilent |disease.| As for Nestorius's adherents, he thinks, there are many points for consideration, and that a distinction should be drawn between heresiarchs and their followers. The latter |should have opportunity of recovering their position on repentance.| The consecrators of Maximian appeared to him to have passed a too indiscriminating sentence against all Nestorianizing bishops, and Celestine wished to moderate their zeal. He also wrote (Ep.23) to Theodosius, extravagantly lauding his acts in behalf of orthodoxy, speaking highly of Maximian, and hinting that Nestorius ought to be sent into distant exile.

|One of Celestine's last actions,| says Tillemont, xiv.156, |was his defence of the memory of St. Augustine as a teacher, against the semi-Pelagians of Gaul. He wrote to Venerius, bp. of Marseilles, and five other Gallic prelates, urging them not to be silent. When presbyters spoke rashly and contentiously, it was not seemly that bishops should allow their subordinates 'to claim the first place in teaching,' especially when they raised their voices against 'Augustine of holy memory'| (Ep.21). The nine articles on the doctrine of grace appended to this letter are not by Celestine (see note to Oxf. ed. of Fleury, iii. p.143).

Celestine is described by Socrates (vii.11) as having treated the Novatianists of Rome with harshness, taken away their churches, and obliged their bishop Rusticola to hold his services in private houses. Celestine died on or about July 26, 432 (Tillemont, xiv.738), and was succeeded by Sixtus III. Hefele, Conc. Gesch. ed.2, pp.164 ff.

[W.B.]

Coelestius, heretic of Hibernian Scots
Coelestius occupies a unique position among the Hibernian Scots, as he taught not the faith, but heresy. The general belief is that he was a native of Ireland, of noble birth, and, in early years, of singular piety. About a.d.405 he is found attached to Pelagius at Rome, and the names of these two figure largely in the history of the church, till they are finally condemned in the Ephesine council, a.d.431. Coelestius had for some time studied law, and then become a monk, when his speculations upon the conditions of grace and nature attracted attention, as he affirmed the leading points of what were afterwards known as the Pelagian heresy upon the fall of man and the need of supernatural assistance, in effect denying both. These errors he had partly learned, as he said, from a holy presbyter, Rufinus, of whom nothing else is known. From Rome, on the approach of the Goths, he passed to Sicily, and thence to Carthage; by a council at Carthage, under Aurelius the bishop, his teaching was condemned, a.d.412, though St. Augustine of Hippo had not yet taken up the controversy against him. He soon after retired to Ephesus, where he obtained the priesthood which he had sought in vain at Carthage. On an appeal to pope Zosimus, a.d.417, he presented his teaching in such a light as to procure acquittal before the pope, who, however, in the following year saw good reason to condemn him. At Carthage he always met with a determined opposition, and at Constantinople and Rome both the imperial and the ecclesiastical powers were finally arrayed against him. After the condemnation of the doctrines of Pelagius by the oecumenical council at Ephesus, Coelestius passed from sight. His chief opponents were St. Augustine and St. Jerome Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. i. cent. v. c.23 seq.; Gennadius, de Script. Eccl. c.44; Robertson, Ch. Hist. i. B. ii. c.8; O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scrip. iv.97 n.; Gieseler, i.2; Dupin, Hist. Ch. cent. v. c.2. [[121]Pelagius; Zosimus.]

[J.G.]

Coelicolae
Coelicolae. The death of Julian (a.d.363) was followed by a reaction in favour of the Christians and against the Jews. The fierce bitterness of the edicts of Constantine and Constantius was never perhaps renewed, but the decrees of Theodosius the Great (379-395) and his son Honorius (395-423) were sufficiently strong and cruel to make it evident how the Roman emperors were influenced, both theologically and politically. The Christians convinced themselves that a stand must be made more earnestly than ever against any heresy which would seduce their members in the direction of either Judaism or paganism. The possible confusion of Christianity with either was by all means to be avoided. Most especially should this be the case as regarded Judaism. The scandal at Antioch which roused the holy indignation of St. Chrysostom -- Christian ladies frequenting the synagogues and observing the Jewish festivals, Christian men bringing their lawsuits by preference before the judges of Israel (Grätz, Gesch. d. Juden, iv.315) -- found its reflection in many of the chief centres of the Eastern and Western empires. Hence the effort became more and more strenuous to suppress not only such open approximation of the two religious bodies, but also such sects as indicated, by their forms and doctrines, the intention of presenting a compromise with the truth. St. Augustine (Op. ii. Ep. xliv. cap. vi. § 13, ed. Migne) wrote to the |Elder| of one of these sects, the Coelicolae, inviting him to a conference. Edicts of Theodosius and Honorius denounced the |new doctrine| of the sect, which was said to be marked by |new and unwonted audacity,| and to be nothing else than a |new crime of superstition| (Cod. Theod. xvi. t. v. viii. x. Cod. Justin. i. tit. ix.). Happily there is reason to believe that kinder counsels moderated the severity of such intolerance (Grätz, p.386 seq.; Levysohn, Diss. Inauguralis de Jud. sub Caesar Conditione, pp.4 seq.).

It is difficult to ascertain precisely the views of the Coelicolae. In one edict they are classed with the Jews and the Samaritans, in a second with the Jews only. But it would be a mistake to consider them simply Jews. The Romans, it is well known, called the Jews worshippers of idols through a mistaken notion that the Jewish use of the word |Heaven| for |God| (Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s.v. t) smym, p.2440; Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, i.303) indicated the worship of some created embodiment of heaven (Vitringa, de Synag. i.229). The Coelicolae proper would therefore be easily included by the Romans under the one general title | Jews.| From St. Augustine's letter it would seem that the Coelicolae used a baptism which he counted sacrilege -- i.e. they probably combined a Christian form of baptism with the Jewish rite of circumcision. Such a compromise would appear most objectionable and dangerous to St. Augustine. If, moreover, as their name may indicate, the Coelicolae openly professed their adhesion to the Jewish worship of the One God and rejected the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, this would be an error for which their abhorrence of pagan forms of idolatry would not compensate.

More than this it seems impossible to ascertain. The Coelicolae of Africa, like their congeners the Theosebeis of Phoenicia and Palestine, and the Hypsistarii of Cappadocia, were soon stamped or died out. J. A. Schmid, Hist. Coelicolarum; C. G. F. Walch, Hist. Patriarcharum Jud. pp.5-8; Bingham, Orig. Eccles. vii.271; Niedner, K. G. p.321 n. (1866); Hase, K. G. p.121; Hasse-Köhler, K. G. i.103; Herzog, R. E. s.v. |Himmelsanbeter.|

[J.M.F.]

Colluthus, presbyter and sect founder
Colluthus (2), presbyter and founder of a sect at Alexandria early in the 4th cent. He claimed (on what grounds it is unknown) to exercise episcopal functions; but the council of Alexandria under Hosius (a.d.324) decided that he was only a presbyter, from which it was held to follow necessarily that Ischyras and others ordained by him were only laymen (Ath. Apol. cont. Arian.12, 75-77, 80, pp.106, 152). The passages cited mention also a sect of Colluthians. Bp. Alexander, in a letter preserved by Theodoret (Ecc. Hist. i.4), seems to imply that Colluthus commenced his schismatical proceedings before Arius had separated from the church. A phrase used by Alexander (Christemporeia) has been understood by Valesius to charge Colluthus with taking money for conferring orders. Valesius also infers that the cause of Colluthus's separation was impatience that Alexander had not taken stronger measures against Arianism. The name Colluthus is the first among those presbyters who subscribed to Alexander's condemnation of Arius (Gelas. Cyzic. ii.3). These authorities accuse Colluthus of schism, not heresy; as is also indicated by the mildness of the action of the council, which would probably have excommunicated him had he been deeply tainted with erroneous doctrine. Epiphanius mentions in general terms (Haer.69, 728) that Colluthus taught some perverse things, and founded a sect, which was soon dispersed. The first to give Colluthus a separate heading in heretical lists is Philastrius (79), followed by Augustine and later heresiologists. Philastrius charges him with contradicting Is. xlv.7, by teaching that God did not make evil. Tillemont, vi.231; Walch, Hist. der Ketz. iv.502; Harnack, Alt. Chr. Lit. i.480.

[G.S.]

Collyridians
Collyridians. Under this name Epiphanius (Haer.79) assails certain women who had brought from Thrace into Arabia the practice of performing on certain days rites in honour of the Blessed Virgin, the chief being the offering of a cake (kolluris), and the partaking of it by the worshippers. Epiphanius condemns their conduct because (a) women ought not to offer sacrifice, and (b) Mary is to be honoured, God only to be worshipped. The name Collyris (or kindred forms) is to be found in the LXX translation of Lev. vii.12, viii.26; II. Sam. vi.19, xiii.68; and the word passed thence into the Latin versions.

[G.S.]

Columba (1) Columcille
Columba (1) Columcille, June 9. The life, character, and work of this saint have been exhaustively treated by an Irish and a French author, Reeves and Montalembert. St. Columba was the son of Fedhlimidh, son of Fergus Cennfada, and thus descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, monarch of Ireland, his great-great-grandfather. Born at Gartan, a wild district in co. Donegal, on Dec.7, most probably in 521, he was baptized at Tulach-Dubhglaise (now Temple-Douglas, about halfway between Gartan and Letterkenny), under the name, first, of Crimthann (wolf), and then of Colum (dove), to which was afterwards added the suffix cille, as some say, from his close attendance at the church of his youthful sojourn, and as others, from the many communities founded and governed by him. His chief instructor was bp. Finnian of Moville (by whom he was ordained deacon). While at Clonard with St. Finnian he was ordained to the priesthood by bp. Etchen of Clonfad, to whom he was sent by St. Finnian for that purpose. Why he was never raised to the episcopate is a matter of speculation: in the Scholia on the Felire of St. Aengus the Culdee there is a legend relating how the order of the priesthood was conferred by mistake in place of that of the episcopate (Todd, St. Patrick, 70-71; Book of Obits of C. C. Dublin, Dubl.1844, p. liv.; Colgan, Acta SS.306 n ^17). Bp. Lloyd supposes a political reason, and Lanigan thinks he applied only for the office of chorepiscopus. But Dr. Reeves is of opinion that he really shrank from the responsibilities and many obligations of the highest ecclesiastical rank. In and about a.d.544 we have probably to place the many ecclesiastical and monastic foundations attributed to him in Ireland, his chief favourites being Durrow and Derry. The reasons usually given for his afterwards leaving Ireland are various. But whatever they may have been, he is said to have used his influence to excite a quarrel between the families of the north and south Hy Neill, and the consequence was the battle fought in the barony of Carberry, between Drumcliff and Sligo, on the borders of Ulster and Connaught, a.d.561, and gained by the Neills of the North, the party of St. Columba. In consequence of St. Columba's participation in this quarrel, a synod was assembled at Teltown in Meath to excommunicate him for his share in shedding Christian blood, and if the sentence of excommunication was not actually pronounced, it was owing to the exertions of St. Brendan of Birr and bp. Finnian of Moville on his behalf. Whether by the charge of the synod of Teltown, that he must win as many souls to Christ by his preaching as lives were lost at Cul-Dreimhne, or through his own feeling of remorse, or his great desire for the conversion of the heathen he left Ireland in 563, being 42 years old, and, traversing the sea in a currach of wickerwork covered with hides, landed with his 12 companions on the small island of I, Hy, I-colmkille, Iova, or Iona, situated about 2 miles off the S.W. extremity of Mull in Argyllshire. There, on the border land between the Picts and Scots, and favoured by both, St. Columba founded his monastery, the centre from which he and his followers evangelized the Picts and taught more carefully the Scots, who were already Christians at least in name. Hy was henceforth his chief abode, but he frequently left it for Scotland, where he founded many churches, penetrating N. even to Inverness, and probably farther, and E. into Buchan, Aberdeenshire, sending his disciples where he himself had not leisure to go. His connexion with Ireland was not broken; and in 575 he attended the synod of Drumceatt, with his cousin king Aidan of Dalriada, whom he had crowned in Iona in 574. From Iona as a centre he established Christianity on a firm basis to the N. of the Tay and Clyde. Unfortunately, valuable as St. Adamnan's Life of St. Columba is, it is written rather to extol its subject than to present a picture of the time, and so gives little chronological sequence to the events of the thirty years and upwards of his sojourn in Iona. We gather, however, that in his monastery he was indefatigable in prayer, teaching, study, and transcription of the Scriptures; people came to him from all quarters, some for bodily aid, but most for spiritual needs; and soon smaller societies had to be formed, as at Hinba (one of the Garveloch Islands), Tyree, etc., for the requirements of the monastery. He visited king Bruide at Craig-Phadrick, beside Inverness, and established the monastery of Deer in the N.E. corner of Aberdeenshire, where he left St. Drostan, so that his churches are traced all over the N. of Scotland (Book of Deer, pref.). He also frequently visited Ireland on matters connected with his monasteries, the superintendence of which he retained to the last. He manifested the greatest favour for the bards and national poetry of his country, being himself accounted one of the poets of Ireland, and poems attributed to him are preserved and quoted by Dr. Reeves and Montalembert (see also Misc. Arch. Soc.1 seq.). In a.d.593 he seems to have been visited by sickness, and the angels sent for his soul were stayed but for a time. As the time approached, and the infirmities of age were weighing upon him, he made all preparations for his departure, blessing his monastery, visiting the old scenes, and taking his farewell of even the brute beasts about the monastery. On a Sat. afternoon he was transcribing the 34th Psalm (Ps. xxxiii. E.V.), and coming to the verse, |They who seek the Lord shall want no manner of thing that is good,| he said, |Here I must stop -- at the end of this page; what follows let Baithen write.| He then left his cell to attend vespers, and, returning at their close, lay down on his couch of stone, and gave his last injunctions to Baithen, till the bell at midnight called them to the nocturnal office. St. Columba was the first to enter the oratory, and when the brethren followed with lights they found the saint prostrate before the altar, and he soon passed away, with a sweet smile upon his face, as though he had merely fallen into a gentle sleep. This, according to Dr. Reeves's computation, was early in the morning of Sun. June 9, 597. Ireland justly mourned for one of the best of her sons; Scotland for one of her greatest benefactors. The Life of St. Columba, written by Adamnan, ninth Abbat of that Monastery, by W. Reeves, D.D. (Dubl.1857); a more modern ed. giving Lat. text ed. with intro., notes, glossary, and trans. by Dr. J. T. Fowler (Oxf. Univ. Press); Les Moines d'Occident, par le Comte de Montalembert, vol. iii. (Paris, 1868). See also The Life of St. Columba, ed. by John Smith, D.D. (Edinb.1798). In his preface Dr. Reeves gives a full bibliographical account of the Irish and Latin Acts and Life of St. Columba, with a notice of the MSS., codices, authors, and edd. Cf. Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii.107.

[J.G.]

Columba occupies in missionary history the entire generation preceding the arrival of Augustine (a.d.597). The Celtic apostle of Caledonia died the very year in which the Roman mission set foot in the south of Britain. The first abbat of Iona laboured much longer, in a far wider sphere, and personally with more success, as well as prodigiously more romance, than the first archbp. of Canterbury. [Adamnan.]

[C.H.]

Columbanus, abbat of Luxeuil and Bobbio
Columbanus, abbat of Luxeuil and Bobbio, Nov.21. On this day, in the Mart. Doneg. (by Todd and Reeves, 315), is the entry |Columban, abbat, who was in Italy.| Thus simply does the Irish calendar refer to an Irishman famous in France, Switzerland, and Italy, the great champion of public morals at a cruel and profligate court, the zealous preacher of the Gospel in lands where it had been all but forgotten, and the pious founder of monasteries. His life, written with great care and minuteness by Jonas, of Susa in Piedmont, a monk of his monastery at Bobbio, in the time of Attala and Eustace, his immediate successors, is now pub. by Mabillon (in Acta SS. Ord. St. Bened. tom ii. Sec. ii.2-26), and by Messingham (Flor. Ins. Sanct.219-239), who appends the account of miracles omitted by Jonas, and other additions (ib.239-254), also adding the Rule of St. Columbanus in ten chaps., a short Homily by the saint on the fallaciousness of human life, and some carmina (ib.403-414). The fullest account of his life, works, and writings is in Fleming's Collectanea Sacra (fol. Lovan.1667), which includes Jonas's Life and St. Columbanus's writings. His writings are also in Bibl. Mag. Vet. Pat. vol. viii. (Paris, 1644), and Bibl. Max. Vet. Pat. vol. xii. (Lyons, 1677). His poems were first printed by Goldastus (Paraen. Vet. pars. i.1604). Wright (Biog. Brit. Lit.157 seq.) gives useful particulars of the editions of his writings.

St. Columbanus was born in Leinster in or about a.d.543, the year in which Benedict, his great monastic predecessor, died at Monte Cassino. His chief training was in the monastery of Bangor, on the coast of Down, under the eye of St. Comgall, where he accepted the monastic vows and habit. At the age, most probably, of a little over forty, he was seized with a desire to preach the Gospel beyond the limits of Ireland, and with 12 companions crossed over to France, c. a.d.585, making a short visit to Britain as he went. For several years he traversed the country, teaching the faith, but apparently without building any monastery, till, coming to Burgundy at the solicitations of Gontran the king, he took up his abode in a deserted part of the Vosges mountains. He first chose the ruined Roman fort of Anagrates, now Annegray, a hamlet of the commune of Faucogney (Haute-Saône); then, needing a larger foundation, removed, a.d.590 or 591, to the ruins of the ancient Luxovium, about 8 miles from Annegray, and established his celebrated monastery of Luxeuil, on the confines of Burgundy and Austrasia. But soon he had to erect another monastic establishment at Fontaines, or Fontenay, and divide his monks among these houses. Over each house he placed a superior, who yet was subordinate to himself, and for their management he drew up his well-known Rule, derived no doubt in great measure from his master St. Comgall, and perhaps to some extent from St. Benedict of Monte Cassino. The great principle of this Rule was obedience, absolute and unreserved; and the next was constant and severe labour, to subdue the flesh, exercise the will in daily self-denial, and set an example of industry in cultivation of the soil. The least deviation from the Rule entailed a definite corporal punishment, or a severer form of fast as laid down in the Penitential (see the Rule in Messingham, u.s., Fleming, u.s., and Max Bibl. Vet. Patr. tom. xii. Lyons, 1677; and on it see Montalembert, Monks of the West, ii.447 seq.; Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii.267-269; Neander, Gen. Ch. Hist. v.36, 37; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. c.17, wks. vi.484 seq.; Mabillon, Ann. Bened. lib. viii. sect.17). For 20 years in the wooded and all but inaccessible defiles of the Vosges mountains St. Columbanus laboured with his monks, and all classes of men gathered round him, notwithstanding the severe discipline. His own inclination was always to retire into the wood and caves and hold unrestrained communion with God; but besides the claims of his monasteries, Christian zeal and charity drew him forth. He excited against himself strong feeling among the Gallican clergy and in the Burgundian court. A worldly priesthood felt the reproach of his exceeding earnestness and self-denial, and his pure severity was a constant accusation of loss of love and truth in them. Moreover, he carried with him the peculiar rites and usages of his Irish mother-church; the Irish mode of computing Easter, the Irish tonsure, and the |Cursus Scotorum| which he had received from St. Comgall. This gave great offence to the Gallo-Frank clergy, and in 602 he was arraigned before a synod, where he defended himself boldly, pleading that if error there was it was not his, but had been received from his fathers, and he asked but the licence |to live in silence, in peace and in charity, as I have lived for 12 years, beside the bones of my 17 departed brethren.| At the same time he wrote to pope Gregory the Great several letters on the subject, as afterwards to pope Boniface IV., but with what immediate result we know not, though the haughty bearing and generally independent tone, in words and letters, of |Columbanus the sinner| were little calculated to propitiate the favour of bishops or popes; while Gregory's very friendly connexion with queen Brunehault would make that pope give little heed to the appeals of the stranger whom she disliked. But he received great opposition from the Burgundian court. Thierry II., called also Theodoric, was under age, and his grandmother Brunehault ruled in violent and arbitrary fashion, and encouraged the young king in every form of vice, that she might retain the control of the kingdom. This open profligacy St. Columbanus reproved by word and writing, and thus incurred the bitterest enmity of the king, and specially of the queen-mother. Gifts and flattery proving in vain, he was first carried prisoner to Besançon, and finally banished from the kingdom, A.D.610. He departed from Luxeuil after 20 years' labour there, never to return. With his Irish monks he eventually arrived at the Lake of Constance. First he came to Arbon on its W. coast; then, hearing of the ruins of Bregentium, now Bregenz, at its S.E. corner, he went thither with St. Gall and his other monks, and spent three years preaching to the people, and contending with privation and difficulty. When Bregenz was brought under the power of Burgundy, St. Columbanus had again to flee, and leaving St. Gall at Bregenz he himself, with only one disciple, passed S. across the Alps into Lombardy, where he was honourably received by king Agilulf. At Milan he was soon engaged in a controversy with the many Arians of Lombardy, and about this time wrote to the pope Boniface IV. at the suggestion of king Agilulf and his queen Theodelind. Agilulf, in 613, presented Columbanus with a district in the wild gorges of the Apennines, between Genoa and Milan, not far from the Trebbia, and there he built his celebrated monastery of Bobbio, and there, Nov.21, 615, calmly resigned his spirit. For his life and times, see Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. c.13; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. cc. xv. xvii.; Ind. Chron. A.D.59, 614; Montalembert, Monks of the West, ii. bk. vii.; Butler, Lives of the SS. xi.435 seq.; Neander, Gen. Ch. Hist. v.35 seq.; Milman, Hist. Lat. Christ. ii. bk. iv. c.5. In his writings St. Columbanus everywhere shews sound judgment, solid ecclesiastical learning, elegant taste, and deep spiritual discernment, which says much for the man and for the school in which he was educated. This is well pointed out by Moore in his Hist. of Ireland (i. p.267).

[J.G.]

It is the great distinction of Columbanus, as Neander has observed, that he set the example at the end of the 6th cent. of that missionary enterprise in remote countries of Europe which was afterwards so largely followed up from England and Ireland, as the names of Cilian, Wilfrid, Willebrord, Boniface, Willibald, Willehad, remind us. Colonies of pious monks journeyed forth under the leadership of able abbats, carrying the light of Christianity through the dangerous wilds of continental heathendom. It was about 12 years before the arrival of the Roman mission in England (A. D.597) and the same length of time before the death of Columba the apostle of Caledonia, that Columbanus, fired perhaps by the example of this energetic missionary, passed over into Gaul.

Columbanus's foundation of Luxeuil achieved as great a celebrity as his Rule, and a more enduring one. It became the parent of numerous streams of monastic colonies, which spread through both Burgundies, Rauracia (the ancient bishopric of Basel), Neustria, Champagne, Ponthieu, and the Morini. Luxeuil was, in short, as Montalembert expresses it, the monastic capital of Gaul, as well as the first school in Christendom, a nursery of bishops and saints; while Bobbio, although for so brief a period under the government of its founder, became a stronghold of orthodoxy against the Arians, and long remained a school of learning for North Italy.

The works of Columbanus contained in Fleming's Collectanea Sacra (Lovanii, 1667) are as follows. Prose: -- I. Regula Monastica, in 10 short chaps. II. Regula Coenobialis Fratrum, sive Liber de Quotidianis Poenitentiis Monachorum, in 15 chaps. III. Sermones sive Instructiones Variae, 17 discourses, the first being |de Deo Uno et Trino,| and the last, |Quod per Viam Humilitatis et Obedientiae Deus quaerendus et sequendus sit.| IV. Liber seu Tractatus de Modo seu Mensura Poenitentiarum, the second title being de Poenitentiarum Mensura Taxanda. It prescribes penances for various sins. V. Instructio de Octo Vitiis Principalibus, less than a column in length. The vitia are gula, fornicatio, cupiditas, ira, tristitia, acedia, vana gloria, superbia. VI. Five Epistolae Aliquot ad Diversos : (1) |ad Bonifacium IV.|; (2) |ad Patres Synodi cujusdam Gallicanae super Quaestione Paschae Congregatae|; (3) |ad Discipulos et Monachos suos|; (4) |ad Bonifacium Papam|; (5) |ad S. Gregorium Papam.| These are especially interesting for the information they give on the dispute between the Roman and Irish churches. In reference to (1), see Bonifacius IV. The poetical works, Poemata Quaedam, occupy about 8 pp. fol., ranging in length from 4 lines to 164. The metres are both classical and medieval.

[C.H.]

Comgall
Comgall, one of the most prominent leaders of monasticism in Ireland, said to have had as many as 3,000 monks under him at one time in Bangor and affiliated houses. He was a native of Mourne, now Magheramorne, in the co. of Antrim, and on the shore of Lough Larne. He was probably born A.D.517 (Reeves). After teaching for some years he founded in 558 his great monastery at Bangor, in the Ards of Ulster and co. of Down. Hither multitudes flocked from all quarters, and for it and kindred institutions he drew up a Rule which was considered one of the chief ones of Ireland. His most noted disciples at Bangor were Cormac, son of Diarmaid and king of South Leinster, who in his old age abdicated and became a monk, as is related in the Life of St. Fintan; and St. Columbanus, abbot of Luxeuil and Bobbio. [[124]COLUMBANUS.] After ruling the monastery of Bangor and its dependencies for |10 days, 3 months and 50 years,| as the calendars say, but about 44 years according to computation, St. Comgall died at Bangor on May 10, A.D.602, aged 85, having received his viaticum from St. Fiachra (Feb.8) of Congbail. He is justly reckoned among the Fathers of the Irish church. He was buried at Bangor. See further Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. c.10; Reeves, Adamnan, pass. and Eccl. Ant. pass.; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. cc.13-17, wks. v. vi., Ind. Chr. A.D.456, 516; Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 108-110. His dedications in Scotland were at Durris, Kincardineshire, and possibly Dercongal, or Drumcongal, now Holywood, in Galloway (Forbes, u.s.).

[J.G.]

Commodianus
Commodianus, the author of two Latin poems, Instructiones adversus Gentium Deos pro Christiana Disciplina, and Carmen Apologeticum adversus Judaeos et Gentes. His Instructions are included |inter apocrypha| in a synodal decree of Gelasius (Concil. tom. iv.), probably because of certain heterodox statements respecting Antichrist, the Millennium, and the First Resurrection. In what age he lived has been much disputed. Internal evidence in the poem shews that the author lived in days of persecution. The style of the Instructions points to the age of Cyprian, with whose works they have more than once been edited. There is an allusion to the Novatian Schism (§ xlvii. ad fin.), and the language of § lii. seems to be aimed against the |Thurificati| and |Libellatici| of the 3rd cent. In § lxvi.12 a |subdola pax| is mentioned, which Cave refers to the temporary quiet enjoyed by the Christians under Gallienus, after the Decian and before the Aurelian persecution. Other expressions (e.g. agonia propinqua, § liii, 10) clearly point to the expectation of fresh suffering. But the most important passage as affecting the date of the poem is one in which the author upbraids the Gentiles for perseverance in unbelief, though Christianity has prevailed for 200 years (§ vi.2), and this, which, singularly enough, seems to have escaped the notice of the earlier critics, must be held to fix the date of Commodian as approximately A.D.250. The barbarity of his style, and the peculiarity of certain words (e.g. Zabulo, Zacones), led Rigault to infer that he was of African extraction. He applies to himself the epithet |Gazaeus,| but this probably refers to his dependence upon the treasury of the church (gazophylacium) for support, and not to any connexion with Gaza. Originally a heathen (Instruct. Praef.5, § xxvi.24), he was converted by the perusal of the Scriptures (Praef.6), and if the words |Explicit tractatus sancti Episcopi . . .| discovered on the MS. of the Carmen Apologeticum by Pitra, may be taken to refer to the author of the poem, who, from internal evidence, is conclusively proved to have been Commodian, it would seem that he ultimately became a bishop.

His works (a trans. of which is given in the Ante-Nicene Lib.), though utterly valueless as literature, are of considerable interest in the history of the Latin language as showing that the change had already commenced which resulted in the formation of the Romance languages.

The Instructions are in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. v.; the Apology in Pitra's Spicilegium Solismense, vol. i.

[E.M.Y.]

Commodus
Commodus, A.D.180-193. The monstrous vices of this degenerate son of Marcus Aurelius brought at least one counterbalancing advantage. The persecutions of his father's reign ceased for a time in his. The popular feeling against the Christians, though it still continued, was no longer heightened and directed by the action of the Imperial government, and the result was a marked increase of numbers. Many rich and noble, with their households and kindred, professed themselves Christians (Eus. H. E. v.21), even in the emperor's palace, but it is uncertain whether they were officers, freedmen, or slaves (Iren. adv. Haer. iv.30). Marcia, the favourite mistress of the emperor, is said by Dio Cassius (Ixxii.4) or Xiphilinus writing in his name, to have used her influence with Commodus in their favour and to have done them much good service. The strange history of CALLISTUS In the Refutation of all Heresies attributed to Hippolytus (ix.6) throws fresh light on Marcia's connexion with the Christian church at Rome. The epithet by which he describes her as a |God-loving woman| may be, as Dr. Wordsworth suggested, ironical; but it is clear that she was in frequent communication with the officers of the church. Callistus had been brought before Fuscianus, the city prefect, charged with disturbing a synagogue of the Jews, and was sentenced to hard labour in the mines of Sardinia. Marcia sent for Victor, a bishop of the church, asked what Christians were suffering for their faith in Sardinia, and obtained from Commodus an order of release. The order was given to an eunuch, Hyacinthus, who carried it to Sardinia, and obtained the liberation of Callistus and others, alleging his own influence with Marcia as his warrant, though the name of Callistus had not been included in the list. The narrative clearly implies that Hyacinthus was a Christian.

Thus some Christians had, as such, been condemned to exile; and persecutions, though less frequent, had not altogether ceased. One sufferer of the time takes his place in the list of martyrs. Apollonius, a Roman citizen of distinction, perhaps a senator, of high repute for philosophical culture, was accused before Perennius, the prefect of the city, by one of his own slaves. In accordance with an imperial edict sentencing informers, in such cases, to death even when the accused was found guilty, the slave had his legs broken. Apollonius delivered before the senate an elaborate Apologia for his faith. By what Eusebius speaks of as an ancient law (possibly the edict of Trajan) he was beheaded (H. E. v.21).

[E.H.P.]

Constans I
Constans I., the youngest of the three sons of Constantine the Great, was born c.320 and made Caesar in 333; he reigned as Augustus 337-350 when he was killed by the conspiracy of Magnentius. [[126]CONSTANTIUS II.] De Broglie (iii. pp.58, 59) in his character of him remarks: |As far as we can discriminate between the contradictory estimates of different historians, Constans was of a simple, somewhat coarse, nature, and one without high aims though without malice. As regards the inheritance of his father's qualities, while Constantius seemed to have taken for his share his political knowledge, his military skill, and his eloquence (though reproducing a very faint image of them), Constans had only received great personal courage and a straightforwardness that did him honour. He was, besides, a lover of pleasure: he was suspected of the gravest moral irregularities. . . . He had firm, though certainly unenlightened, faith, and frequently gave proofs of it by distributing largesses to the churches and favours to the Christians| (cf. Eutrop. Brev. x.9, Vict. Caes.41, Epit.41). Zosimus (ii.42) gives him a worse character than do the others. Libanius in 348 delivered a panegyric on Constans and Constantius, called basilikos logos, vol. iii. ed. Reiske, pp.272-332. St. Chrysostom in the difficult and probably corrupt passage of his 15th Homily on the Philippians, p.363, ed. Gaume, speaks of him as having children and as committing suicide, statements elsewhere unsupported. The most favourable evidence for Constans is the praise of St. Athanasius (Apol. ad Constantium, 4 sqq.; cf. the letter of Hosius in Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, 44). His conduct with respect to the Arian and Donatist controversies gained him the esteem of Catholics. He was a baptized Christian; his baptism is referred to in Ap. ad C.7.

[J.w.]

Constantinus I
Constantinus I. -- I. A. Ancient Authorities
(Heathen). -- Eutropius, Breviarium, Hist. Rom., end of 9th and beginning of 10th book. This historian was secretary to the emperor, and his short account is therefore valuable. The Caesares and the Epitome, current under the name of Aurelius Victor, were doubtless the work of different authors. The first, who wrote under Constantius, was a friend of Ammianus, and praefectus urbi towards the close of the cent.; the second, who excerpted from the first, lived a generation later, and continued his compilation down to the death of Theodosius the Great. They seem to have used the same sources as Zosimus, whom they supplement. The Panegyrists, as contemporary writers, deserve more attention than has been given them, allowance being made for the defects incident to their style of writing. Those relating to our subject -- Anon. Panegyr. Maximiano et Constantino (A.D.307), Eumenii Constantino in natalibus urb. Trevir. (310), and Gratiarum actio Flaviensium nomine (311), Anon. de Victoria adv. Maxentium (313), and Nazarii Paneg. Constantino (321) -- are all the product of Gallic rhetoricians. The Scriptores Hist. Augustae contain several contemporary references to Constantine; those in Julian's Caesars are, as might be expected, unfriendly and satirical. The first vol. of the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine historians contains the fragments of Eunapius, Priscus, Dexippus, etc., but these are of little moment, as are the extracts from Praxagoras in Photius, Cod.62. Indirectly it is supposed that we have more of the matter of these earlier writers in Zosimus's historia nea, bk. ii. This historian lived probably c.450. He was a bitter enemy of Constantine, whom he accuses of various crimes and cruelties, and blames for the novelties of his policy, shewing a particular dislike of his conversion. He falls into several historical blunders. The part of Ammianus's Histories relating to this reign is unfortunately lost. Some remarks on it occur in the part preserved, from which we gather his general agreement with his friend and contemporary Victor. The text of Ammianus, pub. by Gardthausen (Teubner, 1874), may be recommended. He has also given a revised text from the MSS. of the anonymous excerpts generally cited as Anonymus Valesii, Excerpta Valesiana. They received this name from being first printed by H. Valois, at the end of his ed. of Ammianus. Some of these extracts may be traced word for word in Eutropius and Orosius; hence their author did not live earlier than the 5th cent. Others are valuable as coming from sources elsewhere unrepresented.

(Christian.) The earliest contemporary authority is Lactantius, de Mortibus Persecutorum, a tract pub. after the defeat of Maxentius and before Constantine had declared himself the enemy of Licinius -- i.e. probably 313 or 314. His bitterness is unpleasant, and his language exaggerated and somewhat obscure, but his facts are generally confirmed by other authors, where we can test them. The most important is Eusebius. Three of his works especially treat of Constantine, Hist. Eccl. ix. and x., down to 324, and probably pub. before the death of Crispus in 326; de Vita Constantini, in four books, with a translation of Constantine's Oratio ad Sanctorum Coetum as an appendix, pub. after his death; and, thirdly, triakontaeterikhos, or Laudes Constantini, a panegyric at his tricennalia, containing little but rhetoric. To harmonize Eusebius and Zosimus is difficult. Fleury's dictum, |on ne se trompera sur Constantin en croyant tout le mil qu'en dit Eusebe, et tout le bien qu'en dit Zosime,| may be perfectly true, but Zosimus says very little good of him and Eusebius very little harm. Eusebius has great weight as a contemporary and as giving documents, which have not for the most part been seriously challenged; but he is discredited by fulsomeness and bad taste in his later works, and by inconsistencies of tone between them and his history. He announces, however, that he will only recount those actions of the emperor which belong to his religious life (V. C. i.11: mona ta pros ton theophile sunteinonta bion), and is open to the criticism of Socrates (H. E. i.1) as ton epainon tou basileus kai tes panegurikes hupsegorias ton logon mallon hos en enkomio phrontisas e peri tou akribos perilabein ta genomena. We must allow for the natural exultation of Christians over the emperor who had done so much for them and openly professed himself an instrument of Providence for the advancement of Christianity. Neither in the case of Eusebius nor of Zosimus must we push our distrust too far. The best ed. of the historical works of Eusebius is by F. A. Heinichen, repub. and enlarged (Leipz.1868-1870, 3 vols.). The laws issued by Constantine (after 312) in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes are very important contemporary documents. The first are in a purer state, and may be consulted in the excellent ed. of Hanel (Bonn.1842-1844), or in the older standard folios of Godefroi, with their valuable historical notes. Both codes are arranged chronologically in Migne's Patrologia, Opera Constantini, which also contains the Panegyrists and documents relating to the early history of the Donatists.

Socrates, H. E. i., and Sozomen, H. E. i. and ii. (about a cent. later), give an account of the last period of his reign; Socrates being generally the safer guide. On his relations with Arianism much is found in the treatises and epp. of St. Athanasius, and occasional facts may be gleaned from other Fathers. As a hero of Byzantine history and esapostolos, Constantine has become clothed in a mist of fiction. Something may be gathered from Joannes Lydus, de Magistrat. P. R., and among the fables of Cedrenus and Zonaras may be found some facts from more trustworthy sources.

B. Modern Authorities. -- It will be unnecessary to enumerate the well-known writers of church history and the multitude of minor essays on separate points of Constantine's life. As early as 1720 Vogt (Hist. Lit. Const. Mag. Hamburg) gave a list of more than 150 authors, ancient and modern, and the number has since infinitely increased. The first critical life of importance is by J. C. F. Manso (Leben Constantans des Grossen, Wien, 1819, etc.), but it is hard and one-sided, unchristian, if not antichristian. Jacob Burckhardt largely follows Manso, but is much more interesting and popular (Die Zeit Constantins des Gr. Basel, 1853), though not always fair. Some misstatements in it are noticed below. He views the emperor merely as a great politician, and shews much bitterness against Eusebius. Theodore Keim's Der Uebertritt Const. des Gr. (Zürich, 2863) is in many points a good refutation of Burckhardt, as well as being a fair statement from one not disposed to be credulous. The first two volumes of L'Eglise et l'Empire au IV^e Siècle, by A. de Broglie (Paris, 1855, etc.), give the views of a learned Roman Catholic, generally based on original authorities, and this is perhaps the most useful book upon the subject. The section (134) in Dr. P. Schaff's Gesch. der Alten Kirche (Leipz.1867, also trans.) is as good a short account of Constantine as can be named. In English we have a short life by a Nonconformist, Mr. Joseph Fletcher (Lond.1852, 16mo), but no standard work of importance. The brilliant sketch by Dean Stanley in his Eastern Church is probably the fairest picture of Constantine in our language. For his relations with Arianism we may refer to Newman's Arians of the Fourth Cent. (1st ed.1833; 3rd ed.1871); Neale's Eastern Church, Patriarchate of Alexandria; Bright's History of the Church, A.D.313-451, 2nd ed.1869; and Gwatkin's Arian Controversy. A simple monograph on Constantine by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K.

II. Life. -- Period i. To 312. -- Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, surnamed Magnus or the Great, was born Feb.27, probably in 274, at Naissus ( Nissa), in Dardania or Upper Moesia, where his family had for some time been settled. His father, Constantius Chlorus, was still young at the time of his son's birth. He was of a good family, being nephew by the mother's side of the emperor Claudius. A few years later we find him high in favour with Carus, who intended, it was said, to make him Caesar. Constantine's mother Helena, on the other hand, was of mean position, and apparently was married after her son's birth. Constantine was brought up at Drepanum in Cicilia, his mother's birthplace (Procop. de Aedif. Justin. v.2). His father, on becoming Caesar and taking another wife, sent him, when about 16 years old, as a sort of hostage to Diocletian at Nicomedia, who treated him with kindness. His first military service was to accompany that emperor against Achillaeus in 296, and Eusebius saw him as a young and handsome man passing through Palestine into Egypt (V. C. i, 19). In 297 he took part in the successful war of Galerius against the Persians; and about this time married Minervina. Constantine continued in the East while his father was fighting in Gaul and Britain. In 303 he was present when the edict of persecution against the Christians was promulgated at Nicomedia and the palace soon after struck by lightning. The concurrence of these two events made a strong impression upon him (Orat. ad Sanct. Coet.25). He also witnessed in 305 the abdication of the two Augusti, Diocletian and Maximian.

A higher destiny awaited him in another part of the empire. His father insisted upon his return, and Galerius at length was persuaded to give permission and the seal necessary for the public posts, ordering him not to start before receiving his last instructions on the morrow. Constantine took flight in the night. He had probably good reasons for his mistrust, and to stop pursuit maimed the public horses at many stations on his road (Zos. ii.8; Anon. Val.4; Victor, Caes.21), which lay partly through countries where the persecution was raging. He arrived at Gesoriacum (Boulogne) just in time to accompany his father to Britain on his last expedition against the Picts (Eumen. in Nat. Urb. Trev. vii.). Constantius died at York, July 306, in the presence of his sons, after declaring Constantine his successor (de M. P. xxiv.). He was almost immediately proclaimed Augustus by the soldiers (Sebastos pros ton stratopedon anagoreutheis, Eus. H. E. viii.13). Almost at the same time another claimant of imperial power appeared at Rome in Maxentius, son of the retired Maximian, who now came forward again to assist his son. Constantine's first act was to shew favour to the Christians (de M. P. xxiv.), who had been exposed to little of the violence of persecution under the mild rule of Constantius. (V. C. i.13-17. Eusebius seems here to exaggerate. Cf. Episcopor. partis Majorini preces ad Constantinum, in Op. Const. Migne, col.747.) Constantine had at once to defend Gaul against the Franks and German tribes, who had risen during the absence of Constantius in Britain (Eumen. ib., x.). In 307 Maximian, who had quarrelled with his son, crossed the Alps and allied himself with the Caesar of the West. Constantine received as wife his daughter Fausta, and with her the title of Augustus (Pan. Max. et Const. v.). For three years after marriage he found sufficient employment in consolidating his government in the West, and in wars upon the frontier of the Rhine, over which he began to build a bridge at Cologne. The seat of his court was Treves, which he embellished with many buildings, including several temples and basilicas, and the forum. Meanwhile Galerius was seized with a painful illness, and on April 30, 311, shortly before his death, issued his haughty edict of toleration, the first of the series, to which the names of Constantine and Licinius were also affixed. Constantine remained in the West engaged in wars with the Alemanni and Cherusci, and in restoring the cities of Gaul (cf. Eumen. Gratiarum actio Flaviensium Nomine, on the restoration of the schools of Autun). He is said to have interfered by letter on behalf of the Eastern Christians whom Maximinus Daza now began to molest, and this is in itself probable (de M. P. xxxvii.). We must remember that there were now four Augusti, Licinius and Maximinus in the East; Maxentius and Constantine in the West. The two latter had for some time acknowledged one another (see below, § VI. Coins), and probably by tacit consent the four restricted themselves pretty nearly to the limits which afterwards bounded the four great prefectures. But there was little united action between them, and sole empire was perhaps the secret aim of each. Maxentius now felt himself strong enough to break with Constantine, and declared war against him. The latter determined to take the initative, and crossed the Cottian Alps, by the pass of Mont Genévre, with a force much smaller than that of his opponent. Later historians affirm that the Romans besought him by an embassy to free them from the tyrant (Zon. Ann. xiii.; Cedrenus, § 270), and this is probable, for Maxentius, by folly, insolence, and brutality had greatly alienated his subjects. Constantine had allied himself with one of the Eastern Augusti, Licinius, whom he engaged in marriage with his sister Constantia, but had to proceed against the counsels and wishes of his generals and the advice of the augurs (Pan. de Vict. adv. Maxent. ii.). After taking Turin, he rested some days at Milan, where he was received in triumph, and gave audience to all who desired it (ib. vii.). We may assume that at the same place and time, the spring or summer of 312, occurred also the betrothal of Constantia with Licinius, and the issue of a second edict of toleration to the Christians, that somewhat hard edict to which the emperors refer in the more celebrated announcement of 313 (see below § III. B. Religious Policy, and cf. Keim, Uebertritt, note 11). After taking Verona, Constantine apparently met with little resistance till within a few miles of Rome, though this is not quite consistent with the statement of Lactantius (de M. P. xliv.). He had turned the advanced guard of the enemy at Saxa Rubra, close to the Cremera, and then pressed forward along the Flaminian road to the walls of the city itself. With great rashness Maxentius had determined to give battle exactly in front of the Tiber, with the Milvian bridge behind him, about a mile from the gates of Rome. It was Oct.26, and during the night, according to our earliest authority, Constantine was warned in a dream to draw the monogram of Christ, the , upon the shields of his soldiers, and now, if not before, learnt to invoke the name of Christ to help his arms (H. E. ix.9, 12). For the different accounts of the vision see below, § V. Maxentius, meanwhile, spent the night in sacrifices and divination (Zos. ii.16, etc.). Next morning the two armies met. That of Maxentius was totally routed, although the praetorians vigorously resisted. The fugitives crowded upon the bridge, and upon the pontoons at its side which Maxentius had devised, according to an almost incredible statement, so as to give way beneath his opponent (Eus. H. E. ix, 9; 5, 6; V. C. i.38; Zos. ii.15). He was himself precipitated into the river, where his body was found the next day. The victor entered Rome in triumph, and was received with great joy (Pan. de Vict. adv. M. xix.). He used his victory on the whole with moderation. Eusebius tells us that he set up a statue of himself with a spear terminating in a cross in his right hand, and an inscription to the effect that by this salutary sign (or standard) he had restored the Roman senate and people to their ancient glory and freedom (H. E. ix.9; cf. V. C. i.40). He now enlarged and endowed many churches in and near Rome ( V. C. i.42), and wrote the letters to Anulinus in behalf of the Catholic church in Africa which led to such important consequences (ap. Eus. H. E. x.5, 7). From these documents it is evident that Constantine had already a strong disposition to favour the Christians, especially the Catholic body. The answers to one of them brought the case of Caecilian and the Donatists to his notice, and involved him in the affairs of the African church. He accepted the title and insignia of Pontifex Maximus, and both were borne by his successors till Gratian (Zos. iv.36).

Period ii.312-324. Commencement of the cycle of Indictions, Sept.1, 312. Constantine sole emperor of the West. -- Constantine at the age of about 30 was now sole Augustus of the West. Having settled the affairs of Rome, he proceeded early in 313 to meet Licinius at Milan. There the marriage of the latter with Constantia was consummated, and the full edict of toleration, the Edict of Milan, was promulgated. The emperors then separated, Licinius to defend himself against Maximinus Daza, Constantine to guard the Rhine. Both were victorious. Licinius soon after became sole master of the East by the death of Maximus at Tarsus (Zos. ii.17; de M. P. xlix.). The latter had followed the edict of Milan, at the behest of the other emperors, by an act of toleration of his own, but of a less full and generous nature. This did not prevent him from taking advantage of the absence of Licinius to invade his territory, who had in consequence to fight Maximinus at Adrianople with a force half as large as that opposed to him. The battle was in many details like that against Maxentius -- Licinius was favoured with a mysterious dream, and solemnly put his army under the protection of the God of the Christians, and on the morning of the battle repeated aloud three times with his officers a prayer to the holy and supreme God (de M. P. xlvi.). After his victory he entered Nicomedia in triumph, proclaimed the edict of Milan, June 13, and then pursued Maximinus into Cilicia, where he found that last of the persecutors dying a horrible and painful death (de M. P. xlix.; Eus. H. E. ix, 10, 24). The brothers-in-law were thus raised to an equality of power, and were not likely to remain long at peace. The occasion of their quarrel is obscure. Constantine accused Licinius of fomenting a conspiracy against him. Licinius was defeated and made peace by the cession of Illyricum -- i.e. of the whole peninsula of which Greece is the extremity. Constantine was not too busy during this campaign to attend to the arrangement of the council of Arles, and to interest himself vehemently in the Donatist disputes. Peace followed for nine years, during which the emperor employed himself with barbarian wars, and with legislation civil and religious, as detailed below. His Decennalia were celebrated at Rome 315, 316, and the triumphal arch dedicated. Two years later his son Crispus, now a young man, and his infant son and nephew Constantine and Licinianus, were raised to the rank of Caesar at Arles (Zos. ii.20, etc.). His other sons by Fausta were born also in this period, Constantius in 317 and Constans in 323. Licinius meanwhile began to oppress his subjects, especially the Christians. He forbade the synods of bishops, interfered with their worship, and in many cases destroyed their churches (even Julian, Caes. p.315, is unfavourable to Licinius). Constantine was engaged in defending his Danubian frontier from Goths and Sarmatians, and took the Sarmatian king Rausimodes prisoner (Zos. ii.21). In some of these expeditions he had trespassed across the boundaries of Licinius, and this was the pretext for a quarrel, which was increased by the expostulations of Constantine against the treatment of the Christians, and after some changes of temper on the part of Licinius, an open rupture took place.

The character of the former war was ambiguous. This one was in great measure a religious war or crusade (Eus. H. E. x.9). Before any conflict was fought (it was said) the subjects of Licinius thought they saw the victorious legions of Constantine marching through their streets at midday (V. C. ii.6). The monogram of Christ was now stamped on almost all his coinage (infra, § VI.). The labarum became a talisman of victory (hoionei ti niketikon alexipharmakon, V. C. ii, 7), The emperor surrounded himself with Christian priests, and believed himself favoured with visions as he prayed in the tent containing the standard of the cross, and leapt up as if inspired to victory (ib.12). The sentiment of a divine vocation was probably a real one to him, and was fostered by the approbation of the Christians. Licinius, on the very scene of his conflict as a Christian champion with Maximinus, prepared for battle by sacrifice and worship of the gods, against whom he had then fought, and Constantine prepared by prayer and by giving the watchword Theos soter (V. C. ii.5 and 6; cf. Soz. H. E. i.7 on the perversion of Licinius). The battle of Adrianople, July 3, 323, was a second victory for the Christian arms. Constantine pursued his opponent to Byzantium. Meanwhile Crispus, who had already won his youthful laurels against the Franks, shewed himself most active in command of the fleet, and defeated the admiral Amandus in the Hellespont. This caused Licinius to quit Byzantium for Chalcedon, where he appointed one of his chief officers, Martinianus, as Caesar. Constantine pursued him, and on Sept.10, after some negotiations, achieved a final victory at Chrysopolis. Licinius, on the entreaty of Constantia, was permitted to retire to Thessalonica; but was not allowed to live above a year longer. Socrates relates that after remaining quiet a short time, | he collected some barbarians, and attempted to repair his defeat| (H. E. i.4; so Zonaras and Niceph. Call.), and Eusebius justifies his execution by the law of war (V. C. ii.19). Zosimus and the heathen historians make it an instance of the emperor's faithlessness (Zos. ii.28; Victor, Epit. l.c.; Eutrop. Brev. x.6), as does also the chronicle of Jerome (ann.2339. |Licinius Thessalonicae contra jus sacramenti privatus occiditur|). Yet apparently Constantia did not resent the execution of her husband, nor Fausta the death of her father. Constantine was thus master of the whole empire, and his first act was to issue edicts of toleration and favour to the Christians of the East (V. C. ii.24 seq., cited as Provincialibus Palestinae and 48 seq. Prov. Orientis). He now specially assumed the title of Victor (niketes). (V. C. ii.19). He had won it by his constant successes against barbarians on the Rhine and Danube and rival emperors from the Tiber to the Bosphorus: his twenty years of empire had brought him from London in the far West to Byzantium, the centre of the Eastern world, and had been years of uninterrupted conquest. He was not unthankful to the Providence which had guided him, nor indisposed to acknowledge that something was due from him in return (Prov. Pal. V. C. ii.28, 29). But his progress had not led him to a victory over himself, or rather his success made him forget his own liability to crime.

Period iii.324-337. Constantine sole emperor. -- The history of the last twelve years of Constantine's reign is of a very different character from that of preceding periods. As sole emperor he loses rather than gains in our estimation. He had no longer a religious cause to fight for nor a dangerous rival to overthrow. The hardness of his character fitted him for a life of strong excitement, but not for the intrigues of an Eastern court and the subtle questions of Eastern theology. His immoderate profusion in building and other expensive operations gained him the name of |spend-thrift,| and his liberality towards the church was by no means free from the evils that attend prodigal benevolence. But he had no less a providential part to play in the internal history of that church than he had had up to this time in the destruction of her persecutors. As emperor of the West he had been led to interfere in her councils by the African schism, on which his decision was desired by both parties. As monarch also of the East he was brought directly into contact with speculations on points of Christian doctrine which had their origin and home there. He again attempted to realize his idea of unity. Taking as precedent the great council of Western bishops he had summoned at Arles (Aug.34) in the case of Caecilian, he determined to call together
representatives of the whole empire to decide on the doctrines of Arius and the Paschal controversy (see below, § III.2). To Constantine is due in great measure the holding of the council of Nicaea (June and July, 325). But the success of that great meeting unfortunately filled him with overweening pride. The conclusion of their session fell at the beginning of the 20th year of his reign, and he celebrated the condemnation of Arius as a second triumph (V. C. iii.14). He entertained all the bishops at his table. |The guards,| says Eusebius, |kept watch with drawn swords round the vestibule of the palace; the men of God passed through their midst without fear, and entered the inmost parts of the royal dwelling. Some of them reclined by his side, and others were placed on couches on either hand. One might have seemed to picture to oneself an image of Christ's kingdom; the whole thing was more like a dream than a reality| (ib.15). The same writer suggests that the church of the Anastasis, built by Constantine, fulfilled the prophecies about the New Jerusalem (V. C. iii.33). Constantine's interest in the success of the council did not end with its dispersion. He wrote to those concerned in its decrees, strongly enforcing conformity with them. The same feelings led him to compose and deliver theological declamations, and to attempt the conversion of his courtiers. Large crowds attended to listen to the philosophizing prince, who did not spare their faults. But the matter was not one merely of philosophy. It may be, as Burckhardt suggests (p.454), that he took such opportunities of seriously warning or even denouncing those of his |companions| and |palatines| whose presumption on his his favour had become intolerable. The passionate and almost eloquent law of this year, promulgated at Nicomedia, calls upon any one who feels wronged by such officials to declare their grievances freely, and promises personal vengeance on those |who up to this time have deceived us by simulated integrity|; and when Constantine felt himself wronged he did not hesitate to strike (Cod. Th. ix.1, 4 in 325).

After a prolonged sojourn in the East his presence was now required in Rome. He advanced thither by slow stages, arriving about July 8, in time to celebrate the completion of his 20th year of empire, July 25, 326. He left it certainly before the end of Sept.; but in that short space of time all that was tragical in his life seems to have reached its climax. There was much in the city itself to irritate and disturb him. The ancient aristocracy, in the absence of a resident emperor, preserved many of its old heathen traditions. Though he came determined to be tolerant (Cod. Th. xv.1, 3) and desirous of gaining the favour of the senate (id. xv.14; 3, 4), it soon became evident that he was out of harmony with Rome. He would not join in the solemn review of the knights held on July 15, and in their procession and sacrifice to Jupiter Capitolinus; but viewed it contemptuously from the Palatine and ridiculed it to those around him (Zos. ii.29). Such an action, joined with his Oriental dress and general bearing, seems to have aroused popular indignation against him. Though tempted to revenge himself by force, he was wise enough to refrain. (See esp. de Broglie, l.c. ii. c.5, for the events of this year. He puts together Liban. Or.12, p.393; Or.15, p.412, and Chrys. Or. ad Pop. Antioch.21.) But this outburst was followed by far heavier tragedies within his own household. In relating them we have to rely on the vague and inconsistent tales of later writers, those nearest the emperor, Eutropius and Eusebius, being markedly silent. They seem to have originated with divisions, such as easily arose in a family composed of so many different elements. The half-brothers of Constantine, the sons of Constantius and Theodora, naturally took part with their mother's half-sister, Fausta, and her sons. On the other hand, Helena had reason to sympathize with her grandson Crispus, the son of Minervina. Probably it was in connexion with these divisions that Crispus was suddenly arrested and conveyed to an unknown death at Pola in Istria (Amm. Marc. xiv.11). Niebuhr thought it probable that the accusation of treason against his father, reported by Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. i.36), had some foundation of truth. Another, but not an early account, represents Fausta as playing to Crispus the part of Phaedra towards Hippolytus (Zos. ii.29), and other authors name her as his accuser without specifying the nature of the charge (Vict. Epit.41, Philostorgius, ii.4. Sozomen, H. E. i.5, implies that the death of Crispus was required of Constantine by others). The young and promising Caesar Licinianus was at the same time unjustifiably put to death (Eutrop. x.6 ; Hieron. Chron. Ann.2342). The following satirical distich, attributed to the city prefect Ablavius, was found on the palace doors after the death of Crispus (Sidon. Apollin. Ep. v.8): --

|Saturni autea saecla quis requirat?

Sunt haec gemmea, sed Neroniana.|

But he was avenged much more tragically, and at no distant date. (Jerome puts it three years later, the others connect the two events.) Fausta herself was executed in as sudden and as dark a way as Crispus. The complaints of Helena seemed to have aroused her son to this dire act of retribution (Zos. ii.29; Vict. Epit.41). Later writers represent the empress as guilty of adultery (Philost. ii.4.; Sidon. Apoll. l.c.; Greg. Turon. H. F. i.34), and her punishment is said to have been suffocation in the steam of a hot bath.

There cannot, we think, despite the doubts raised by Gibbon, be any real doubt that Crispus and Fausta perished, both probably in 328, by the orders of Constantine, acting as the instrument of family jealousies. The death of Fausta was followed by the execution of many of her friends, presumably those who had taken part against Crispus (Eutrop. x.4). Popular traditions represent Constantine as tormented by remorse after his delirium of cruelty had passed, and as seeking everywhere the means of expiation; and nothing can be more in harmony with the character of Constantine and of the age than to suppose this. Christian bishops could only urge him to repentance to be followed by baptism. But for reasons which we do not thoroughly know, Constantine put off this important step, and also the baptism of his sons. That he bestowed some possessions on the church at this time, and built or handed over basilicas to it, is very probable. Among the many which claim foundation at his hand we may name the Vatican, which was destroyed to make room for the modern St. Peter's; St. Agnes, which has an inscription referring to his daughter Constantina; and the Lateran, once the palace of Fausta and the seat of the first council about the Donatists, and still the real cathedral of the pope. Probably the pilgrimage of Helena to Palestine in pursuance of a vow, and the |Invention of the Cross,| is to be assigned to the time that immediately follows. Constantine gave her every assistance, and authorized her to spend money freely both in alms and buildings (Paulinus of Nola, Ep.11, ad Sulpic. Sever.; cf. V. C. iii.47, 3). Possibly he delayed his own Baptism in the hope that he might soon follow her example and be washed in the holy waters of Jordan (V. C. iv.62). He now left Rome never to return, but with the project of founding a new Rome in the East, which should equal if not surpass the old.

The beauty and convenience of the site of Byzantium had long been noticed (cf. Herod. iv.144); it was the birthplace of Fausta, and its immediate neighbourhood had seen the final defeat of Licinius. The emperor had perhaps already formed the idea of embellishing it and calling it by his own name. He had probably moved a mint thither as early as 325, and used the name (Constantinopolis) upon his coins. But now his intention may have been strengthened by his distaste for Rome, and by a superstition that Rome's fall from power was at hand (Chron. Pasch. ed. Bonn, p.517). Other cities had attracted his attention; his final choice was Byzantium. Many stories are told of the ceremonies with which he laid out the plan of the new Rome, enclosing like its prototype the tops of seven hills. De Broglie places the foundation in 328 or 329 (l.c. ii.441). The Christian historians assert that the absence of heathenism from the city was the express desire of the emperor (e.g. V. C. iii.48).

The removal of Sopater perhaps gave room for the power of Helena to reassert itself. She communicated to her son the success of her pilgrimage, and forwarded him certain relics, which he received with great joy. [[127]Helena.] The death about the same time of his sister Constantia had important consequences. She was much under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and had in her household an Arian priest, who persuaded her that Arius had been most unjustly treated. She had not courage to speak on the subject herself to her brother, but on her deathbed strongly recommended this priest to him, and he was taken into the imperial family, soon gaining influence over the emperor. The result, it is said, was Constantine's gradual alienation from the Catholics (Socr. i.25; see de Broglie, c. v., at the end). Meanwhile the building of the new capital went on with great vigour, temples and cities, especially in Greece and Asia Minor, being despoiled to beautify it and to fit it for the residence of a new nobility, some created, and others transferred from Rome. Of the population that gathered into it almost all the pagans and many of the Jews became Christians. The city was solemnly consecrated on May 11, 330, followed by a feast of forty days (Idatius, fasti, Chron. Pasch. a.d.330), and the anniversary was long kept as the nativity of Constantinople. It is indeed a very important era, marking the greatest political transformation that the Roman empire underwent. With it were connected the great constitutional changes detailed below, § III.1, under which grew up the Byzantine spirit with its peculiar character, turbulent, slavish, and unimaginative, but yet capable of endurance tempered with a certain kind of morality.

The years that followed brought Constantine more than ever into the debates of the church. The emperor recalled Arius, but Athanasius, now bp. of Alexandria, refused to receive him. In the middle of his 30th year, 335, Constantine distributed the territories under his dominion between his three sons and two nephews. The eldest, Constantine, received the provinces of his grandfather, Britain, Spain, and Gaul; Constantius, Asia, Syria, and Egypt; Constans, Italy and Africa. Dalmatius, with the title of Caesar, had the large province of Illyricum; and Hanniballian, Armenia and Pontus, with the extraordinary name of king. The evidence of coins would lead us to see in this measure a reconciliation of the two branches of the family. The end of Constantine's eventful life was now at hand, and as some of his first military services had been against the Persians, so now he was obliged at its close to prepare for war against that people, though he never actually engaged in it (V. C. iv.57). The labarum had now been for many years the recognized standard of the empire, wherever the emperor was present; and as in the time of the war with Licinius, the monogram of Christ was in these last years largely stamped upon its coins (see § VI.). Constantine made also other preparations for the use of religious service in war, especially of a tent for his own chapel (V. C. iv.56; Socr. i.18), and he had some time before taught his soldiers, heathen as well as Christian, a common daily prayer, and ordered Sunday to be kept as a holy day (V. C. iv.19 and 20; L. C. ix.10; cf. Cod. Th. II.8, 1, in 321). At Easter 337 he completed and dedicated his great church of the Holy Apostles, in which he desired to be buried. In the week that followed, his health, hitherto extremely good, gave way, and he sought relief in the warm baths at Helenopolis. Feeling his death approaching, he confessed his sins in the church of the martyrs (of the martyr Lucianus?), and now first received imposition of hands as a catechumen. Then he moved back to the villa Ancyrona, a suburb of Nicomedia (Eutrop. x.8; Vict. Caes.41), and desired Baptism of the bishops whom he there assembled (V. C. iv.61). He had wished once, he said, to be baptized in Jordan, but God had decided otherwise. He felt that now the blessing he had so long hoped for was offered him. |Let there be no doubt about it,| he added, |I have determined once for all, if the Disposer of life and death sees fit to raise me up again to fellowship with His people, to impose upon myself rules of life such as He would approve| (V. C. iv.62, see Heinichen's note). Baptism was administered to him by the Arian predate Eusebius of Nicomedia (Hieron. Chron. ann.2353). From that moment he laid aside the purple robe, and wore only the white garment of a neophyte. He died on Whitsunday 337, in the 31st year of his reign, dating from July 25, 306.

III. Religious Policy. -- The great change which makes the reign of Constantine an epoch in church history is the union between church and state, and the introduction of the personal interference of the emperor. The proximate cause of his great influence was the reaction of feeling which took place, when the civil governor, from being a persecutor or an instrument of persecution, became a promoter of Christianity. Something, no doubt, was owing to the teaching of Christian moralists as to submission to the powers that be, and to the general tendency towards a system of official subordination, of which the political constitution of Constantine is the great example. His success in establishing that constitution, without any serious opposition, seems to shew the temper of men's minds at the time, and the absence of individual prominence or independence of thought amongst either followers or opponents. This was true as well of the church as of the state. The great men who have left their mark on church organization and policy had either passed away, like St. Cyprian, or had not yet attained their full powers. The two seeming exceptions are Hosius bp. of Cordova and St. Athanasius. The first had great influence over the emperor, but probably lacked genius, and is but obscurely known to us. Athanasius, though he might have sympathized with some of the wide conceptions of Constantine, never came sufficiently into contact with him to overcome the prejudices raised against him by the courtiers; and the emperor could not really comprehend the importance of the points for which Athanasius was contending. The period, too, of Athanassiu's greatest activity was in the succeeding reign.

Constantine, therefore, was left very much to make his own way, and to be guided by his own principles or impulses. With regard to his religious policy we have an expression of his own, in his letter to Alexander and Arius, which may help us in our judgment of its merits (Eus. V. C. ii.65). Two principles, he said, had guided his actions; the first to unify the belief of all nations with regard to the Divinity into one consistent form, the second to set in order the body of the world which was labouring as it were under a grievous sickness. Such, no doubt, were the real desires of Constantine, but he was too impulsive, too rude in intellect, too credulous of his own strength, to carry them out with patience, wisdom, and justice. We shall arrange the details of this policy under three heads:

(1) Acts of Toleration. -- During the first period of his reign it is probable that Constantine as well as Constantius Chlorus prevented any violent persecution. His first public act of toleration, of which we have any certain record, was to join together with Licinius in the edict issued by Galerius in 311 (given in de M. P.34 and more diffusely by Eus. H. E. viii.17). The edict acknowledged that persecution had failed, and gave permission to Christians to worship their own God and rebuild their places of meeting, provided they did nothing contrary to good order (contra disciplinam, misrendered episteme in Eus.). The death of Galerius followed almost directly, and in the spring or summer of 312 Constantine and Licinius promulgated another edict perhaps not very different from that of Galerius. The text of it is lost. It allowed liberty of worship, but specified certain hard conditions; amongst others that no converts should be made from heathenism; that no sect outside |the body of Christians, the Catholic Church,| should be tolerated; that confiscated property should not be restored, except, perhaps, the sites of churches. This edict, issued before the conflict with Maxentius, contrasts strikingly with the much more liberal edict of Milan issued in the spring of 313, which gave free toleration to every religious body. The purport of this edict may be summed up thus: |We have sometime perceived that liberty of worship must not be denied to Christians and to all other men, but whereas in our former edict divers conditions were added, which perhaps have been the cause of the defection of many from that observance, we Constantine and Licinius, Augusti, meeting in Milan, decree that both Christians and all other men soever should have free liberty to choose that form of worship which they consider most suitable to themselves in order that the Divinity may be able to give us and our subjects His accustomed goodwill and favour. We abolish all those conditions entirely. Further for the body of the Christians in particular, all places of meeting which belonged to them, and have since been bought by or granted to others, are to be restored; and an indemnity may be claimed by the buyers or grantees from our treasury; and the same we decree concerning the other corporate property of the Christians. The execution of the law is committed to the civil magistrates, and it is everywhere to be made public.| The change of feeling here evinced was more strongly marked in other documents that followed, which more peculiarly expressed the mind of Constantine. The first in order is a letter to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, giving directions for the execution of the edict, in which the term |Catholic Church| is substituted for that of |body of Christians| (Eus. H. E. x.5, 15). Then follows another addressed to the same official liberating the clergy |in the Catholic church of which Caecilian is president| from the pressure of public burdens. This concession, at first apparently made to Africa alone, was extended to the whole church in 319 (C. Th. xvi.2, 2). The description of Christianity in the privilege granted to the African church is remarkable |as the religion in which the crowning reverence is observed towards the holiest powers of heaven| (H. E. x.7). The mention of Caecilian and this definition of the Catholic church in the same document was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the Donatists. They presented to Anulinus an appeal, Libellus Ecclesiae Catholicae criminum Caeciliani, and a request for a commission of inquiry, both of which he forwarded to the emperor (Aug. Ep.88 (68), 2; Migne, Const. Mag. col.479).

(2) The Donatist Schism. -- The appeal of the Donatists brought Constantine directly into the heart of church controversies, and was the first occasion of his gradually growing interference. Though his relations with this schism form only an episode in its history, their consequences were important. The results were such a mixture of good and evil as seems inseparable from the union of church and state. The church profited by the development of her system of councils, and a general growth in organization and polity; the emperor gained a nearer insight into the feeling of the church; and the state obtained a most important support. On the other hand must be set the identification of the Catholic with the dominant and worldly church, and the precedent allowed of imperial interference in questions of schism. From the banishment of the Donatists for schism it was no great step to the persecutions of Arians and Catholics for heresy, and not much further to the execution of the Priscillianists by Magnus Maximus.

(3) The Arian Controversy. -- The relation of the emperor to this great controversy was the result of his last achievement of power. His complete victory over Licinius in 323 brought him into contact with the controversies of his new dominions in the East, just as his victory over Maxentius had led to the Donatist appeals in the West. The first document which connects him with this controversy is a letter to Alexander and Arius (Eus. V. C. ii.64-72; Socr. i.7 gives only the latter half of it). He expresses his longing for |calm days and careless nights,| and exhorts the opponents to reconciliation. The whole had arisen from an unpractical question stirred by Alexander, and from an inconsiderate opinion expressed by Arius. Again and again he insists on the insignificance of the dispute (huper mikron kai lian elachiston philoneikounton -- huper ton elachiston touton zeteseon akribologeisthe, etc.), shewing in a remarkable manner his own ignorance and self-confidence. This letter was sent by Hosius, but naturally had no effect: though we are ignorant of his proceedings at Alexandria, except that he combated Sabellianism (Socr. iii.8, p.394 Migne; Hefele, § 22). Arius seems to have now written a letter of remonstrance, to which Constantine, who was under other influences or in a different mood, replied in an extraordinary letter of violent invective. The detailed history of this time is involved in difficulty, but the expedient of a general council was a natural one both to the emperor and to the church at large. The Meletian schism in Egypt and the Paschal controversy required settlement, and in Constantine's mind the latter was equally important with Arianism. The idea and its execution are ascribed to Constantine without any mention of suggestions from others, except perhaps from Hosius (Sulpic. Sever. Chron. ii.40, |S. Nicaena Synodus auctore illo confecta habebatur|). He sent complimentary letters in every direction, and gave the use of public carriages and litters to the bishops. The year of the council is allowed to be 325, but the day is much debated. Hefele discusses the various dates, and places the solemn opening on June 14. (Councils, § 26). The bishops were arranged round a great hall in the middle of the palace, when Constantine entered to open the proceedings, dressed magnificently, and making a great impression by his stately presence, lofty stature, and gentle and even modest demeanour. This is not the place to trace the course of the discussions that followed. [[129]Arius.] Two points are deserving of note -- first, the story of his burning the memorials and recriminations of the different parties addressed to him; secondly, his relation to the homoousion. As to the first, it is said that Constantine brought them into the synod in a sealed packet and threw them into the fire, saying to the bishops: |You cannot be judged by a man like myself: such things as these must wait till the great day of God's judgment,| adding, according to Socrates, |Christ has advised us to pardon our brother if we wish to obtain pardon ourselves| (Socr. i.8, p.63 Migne; Soz. i.17). His relation to the homoousion rests on the Ep. of Eusebius to his own church, in which he gives an account of the synod to his own advantage (Socr. i.8; Theod. i.12; Athan. Decret. Synod. Nic.4). He gives the text of the creed which he proposed to the council; and tells us that after it was read no one got up to speak against it, but, on the contrary, the emperor praised it very highly and exhorted everyone to embrace it with the addition only of one word -- |consubstantial.| He then proceeded to comment on it, declaring that the word implied neither a corporeal substance nor a division of the divine substance between the Father and the Son, but was to be understood in a divine and mysterious sense. Though it is pretty clear that the word homoousios was in the minds of the orthodox party throughout, they may have hesitated to propose it at first, as its association with Paul of Samosata was provocative of much disputation. Hosius, it may be, suggested to the emperor that the proposition should come from his lips. He must have had some tuition in theological language from an orthodox theologian before he could give the interpretation with which Eusebius credits him. When the creed was finally drawn up, the emperor accepted it as inspired, and with his usual vehemence in the cause of peace proceeded to inflict penalties upon the few who still refused to sign it. He wished even to abolish the name of Arians and to change it into Porphyrians (Ep. ad Ecclesias, Migne, p.506; Socr. i.9). Later Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were deposed and banished, as they had not recognized the deposition of Arius, though they had been brought to sign the creed. Constantine indulged particularly in invectives against Eusebius of Nicomedia, accusing him of having stirred up persecution under Licinius, and of deceiving himself at Nicaea (Ep. ad Nicomedienses c. Eus. et Theognium, Migne, pp.519 f., from Gelasius, iii.2, and the collections of councils). Constantine expressed an immoderate joy at the success of the council, considering it a personal triumph. Eusebius has preserved the letter the emperor then wrote to all the churches (V. C. iii.17-20).

Constantine in his relations to Arianism was obviously the instrument for good as well as for evil. On the one hand, he acted with good intentions, and was able by the superiority of his position to take a wide view of the needs of the church; on the other he was very ignorant, self-confident, credulous, and violent. We know too little of the influences by which he was swayed: how, for instance, Hosius acquired and lost his ascendancy; what Eusebius of Caesarea really did; how Eusebius of Nicomedia obtained influence with the emperor in the last period of his life. We only know that the emperor, in his anxiety above all things for peace, was led to do violent acts of an inconsistent character that made peace impossible; but we must remember that he was living in an age of violent men.

For details of Constantine's relations with heathenism see especially: A. Beugnot, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme en Occident, 2 vols. (Paris, 1835), an important and thoughtful book, unfortunately scarce; and E. Chastel, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme dans l'Empire d'Orient (Paris, 1850) -- both crowned by the Academy. Less important is Der Untergang des Hellenismus und die Entziehung seiner Tempelgüter durch die Christlichen Kaiser, by Ernst von Lasaulx (München, 1854).

IV. Character. -- Constantine deserves the name of Great, whether we consider the political or the religious change that he effected, but he belongs to the second, rather than the first, order of great men. Notwithstanding his wide successes, and his tenacious grasp over the empire in which he worked such revolutions, notwithstanding his high sense of his own vocation and the grandeur of some of his conceptions, his personal character does not inspire us with admiration. With many of the impulses of greatness it remained to the last unformed and uncertain, and never lost a tinge of barbarism. He was wanting in the best heathen and Christian virtues; he had little of dignity, cultivation, depth, or tenderness. If we compared him with any great man of modern times it would rather be with Peter of Russia than with Napoleon.

V. Vision of the . -- The question of the reality of this vision is perhaps the most unsatisfactory of the many problems in the life of Constantine. The almost contemporary account of Lactantius has been already mentioned; Life, period i.; from de M. P.44: |Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus ut caeleste signum Dei notaret in scutis atque ita proelium committeret. Fecit ut jussus est et tranversa Ch littera, summo capite circumflexo, Christum in scutis notat.| This took place on the night before the battle of the Milvian bridge. Eusebius's narrative (V. C. i.27-32) contrasts very strikingly with this. He represents Constantine as looking about for some god to whom he should appeal for assistance in his campaign against Maxentius, and as thinking of the god of his father Constantius. He besought him in prayer to reveal himself, and received a sign, which the historian could not distrust on the word and oath of the emperor given to himself many years later. About the middle of the afternoon (for so the words seem to be best interpreted), he saw with his own eyes the trophy of the cross figured in light standing above the sun, and with the letters touto nika attached to it. He and his army were seized with amazement, and he himself was in doubt as to the meaning of the appearance. As he was long considering it night came on, and in sleep Christ appeared to him with the sign that appeared in heaven, and ordered him to make a standard of the same pattern. The next day he gave directions to artificers how to prepare the labarum, which was adorned with gold and precious stones. Eusebius describes it as he afterwards himself saw it. It consisted of a tall spear with a bar crossing it, on the highest point of which was a encircled with a crown, while a square banner gorgeously embroidered hung from the cross bar, on the upper part of which were the busts of the emperor and his sons. Constantine immediately made inquiries of the priests as to the figure seen in his vision, and determined with good hope to proceed under that protection.

Eusebius nowhere states exactly where or when this took place; his vague expressions seem to place it near the beginning of the campaign. The senate acknowledged an instinctus divinitatis and the contemporary panegyrist refers to divina praecepta in the campaign with Maxentius.

Another sort of divine encouragement is recorded later by the heathen panegyrist Nazarius in 321, c.14. |All Gaul,| he says, |speaks of the heavenly armies who proclaimed that they were sent to succour the emperor against Maxentius.| |Flagrabant verendum nescio quid umbone corusci et caelestium armorum lux terribilis ardebat . . . Haec ipsorum sermocinatio, hoc inter audientes ferebant 'Constantinum petimus, Constantino imus auxilio.'| A distinct incident is added by the late and antagonistic Zosimus, but he tells us nothing of what happened to Constantine, only of a prodigious number of owls which flocked to the walls of Rome when Maxentius crossed the Tiber (ii.16).

On the Christian side the only independent account of later date seems to be that of Sozomen, i.3, who afterwards gives the account of Eusebius. |Having determined to make an expedition against Maxentius, he was naturally doubtful of the event of the conflict and of the assistance he should have. While he was in this anxiety he saw in a dream the sign of the cross flashing in the sky, and as he was amazed at the sight, angels of God stood by him and said, 'O Constantine, in this conquer! 'It is said too that Christ appeared to him and shewed him the symbol of the cross, and ordered him to make one like it, and to use it in his wars as a mainstay and pledge of victory. Eusebius Pamphili, however,| etc. Rufinus also gives both accounts. Later writers repeat one or other of these narratives, adding details of time and place, for which there is no warrant.

That something took place during the campaign with Maxentius which fixed Constantine's mind upon Christ as his protector and upon the cross as his standard, no unprejudiced person can deny. It is equally certain that he believed he had received this intimation by divine favour and as a divine call. Those who give him credit for inventing the whole story out of political considerations totally misapprehend his character. But two questions obviously remain to be discussed: (1) Which account is to be preferred, that of Eusebius or Sozomen? (2) Can we speak of the circumstance as a miracle?

(1) Eusebius's account, being the most striking and resting on the authority of the emperor, has been most popularly received. It is open to obvious difficulties, arising from the silence of contemporaries and the lateness of the testimony. Dr. J. H. Newman, in his Essay on Ecclesiastical Miracles, has said perhaps all that can be said for Eusebius. He thinks it probable that the panegyrist of 313 refers to this vision as the adverse omen which he will pass over and not raise unpleasant recollections by repeating (cap.2) -- for the cross would be to Romans generally a sign of dismay, and Constantine (says Eusebius) was at first much distressed in mind with regard to it. The panegyrist also praises Constantine for proceeding |contra haruspicum monita,| and asserts |habes profecto aliquod cum ills mente divina, Constantine, secretum, quae, delegate nostri diis minoribus cure, uni se tibi dignetur ostendere?| Optatian also, writing c.326, though he does not mention the vision, speaks of the cross as |caeleste signum.| Those modern writers too, who think of a solar halo or parhelion as an explanation, prefer the account of Eusebius. J. A. Fabricius was perhaps the first to offer this explanation (Exercitatao Critics de Cruce Const. Mag. in his Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. vi.), which is followed by Manso, Milman, Stanley, Heinichen, and others. The latter in his 24th Meletema gives a useful résumé of the literature of the subject. Few historians adopt the alternative, which Schaff accepts, of a providential dream (§ 134). It is difficult in fact to resist the impression that there was some objective sign visible in daylight, such as Eusebius describes, notwithstanding the omission of it by Lactantius.

(2) Can this sign be considered a miracle? The arguments for this conclusion are well put by Newman. He shews that little or nothing is gained by explaining the circumstances as a natural phenomenon or a subjective vision, if once we allow it to be providential; and that a priori this seems a fitting juncture for a miracle to have been worked. |It was first a fitting rite of inauguration when Christianity was about to take its place among the powers to whom God has given rule over the earth; next it was an encouragement and direction to Constantine himself and to the Christians who marched with him; but it neither seems to have been intended nor to have operated as a display of divine power to the confusion of infidelity or error| (§ 155). Newman seems to be right in arguing that nothing is gained -- in regard to difficulties like this -- by transferring the event from the category of miracle to that of special Providence.

[J.W.]

Constantinus II., eldest son of Constantine the Great Constantinus II., the eldest son of Constantine the Great by Fausta, born a.d.312, was made Caesar in 316 together with Crispus, and his quinquennalia were celebrated by the panegyric of Nazarius in 321. At the death of his father, the empire being redivided, Constantine as the eldest son seems to have claimed Constantinople, but this was over ruled, and he was placed over the West. Constantine thus came into contact with St. Athanasius in his exile at Trèves, and at once took him under his protection. [[130]Athanasius.] In 340 Constantine invaded the dominions of Constans and penetrated into Lombardy, where he was killed in a small engagement. His dominions then went to Constans, who thus ruled the entire West. Of his character we know little or nothing. He appears to have been a staunch Catholic, but his attack upon the dominions of his brother Constans does not put his character in a favourable light. His short reign makes him very unimportant.

[J.W.]

Constantius I. Flavius Valerius, emperor
Constantius I. Flavius Valerius, surnamed Chlorus (ho Chloros, |the pale|), Roman emperor, A.D.305, 306, father of Constantine the Great, son of Eutropius, of a noble Dardanian family, by Claudia, daughter of Crispus, brother of the emperors Claudius II. and Quintilius. Born c. a.d.250. Distinguished by ability, valour, and virtue, Constantius became governor of Dalmatia under the emperor Carus, who was prevented by death from making him his successor. Diocletian (emperor, a.d.284-305), to lighten the cares of empire, associated Maximian with himself; and arranged that each emperor should appoint a co-regent Caesar. Constantius was thus adopted by Maximian, and Galerius by Diocletian, (Mar.1, a.d.292). Each being obliged to repudiate his wife and marry the daughter of his adopted father, Constantius separated from Helena, the daughter of an innkeeper, who was not his legal wife but was mother of Constantine the Great, and married Theodore, stepdaughter of Maximian, by whom he had six children. As his share of the empire, Constantius received the provinces Gaul, Spain, and Britain. In a.d.296 he reunited Britain to the empire, after the rebellion of Carausius, and an independence of ten years. In a.d.305, after the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and Constantius became Augusti, and ruled together. As the health of Constantius began to fail, he sent for his son Constantine, who was already exceedingly popular, and who was jealously kept by Galerius at his own court. Constantine escaped, and arrived at his father's camp at Gessoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer) before embarking on another expedition to Britain. In a.d.306 Constantius died in the imperial palace at Eboracum (York). He is described as one of the most excellent characters among the later Romans. He took the keenest interest in the welfare of his people, and limited his personal expenses to the verge of affectation, declaring that |his most valued treasure was in the hearts of his people.| The Gauls delighted to contrast his gentleness and moderation with the haughty sternness of Galerius. His internal administration was as honourable as his success in war. The Christians always praised his tolerance and impartiality. Theophanes calls him Christianophron, a man of Christian principles. He had Christians at his court. Although a pagan, he disapproved of the persecution of Diocletian, and contented himself by closing a few churches and overthrowing some dilapidated buildings, respecting (as the author of the de Morte Persecutorum says) the true temple of God. Christianity spread in Gaul under his peaceful rule, and at the end of the 4th cent. that province had more than 20 bishops. Eutrop. ix.; Aurel. Vict. Caes.39, etc.; Theoph. pp.4-8, ed. Paris; Eus. Vit. Const. i.13-21; Lactantius, de Morte Persecutorum, 15; Smith, D. of G. and R. Biog.; Ceillier, iii.48, 140, 579.

[W.M.S.]

Constantius II., son of Constantius
Constantius II., son of Constantius the Great, was the second of the sons of Fausta, born at Sirmium Aug.6, 317, and emperor 337-361. De Broglie remarks of him (iii. pp.7, 8), |of the sons of Constantine he was the one who seemed best to reproduce the qualities of his father. Although very small in stature, and rendered almost deformed by his short and crooked legs, he had the same address as his father in military exercises, the same patience under fatigue, the same sobriety in diet, the same exemplary severity in all that had regard to continence. He put forward also, with the same love for uncontrolled preeminence, the same literary and theological pretensions: he loved to shew off his eloquence and to harangue his courtiers.| Victor, Caes.42, speaks well of Constantius: the writer of the Epitome credits him with some virtues but speaks of the eunuchs, etc., who surrounded him, and of the adverse influence of his wife Eusebia. Ammianus (xxi.16) gives an elaborate and balanced character of Constantius which seems to be fair. The Christian writers were naturally not partial to an emperor who leaned so constantly towards Arianism and was such a bitter persecutor of the Nicene faith, and did not scruple to call him Ahab, Pilate, and Judas. St. Athanasius nevertheless addressed him in very complimentary terms in the apology which he composed as late as 356. Constantius was not baptized till his last year, yet interfered in church matters with the most arrogant pretensions.

Period i., 337-350. -- Constantine II., Constans, Constantius II., Augusti. -- On the death of Constantine, Constantius hurried to Constantinople for the funeral of his father. The armies, says Eusebius, declared unanimously that they would have none but his sons to succeed him (V. C. iv.68) -- to the exclusion, therefore, of his nephews Dalmatius and Hannibalian. There followed shortly after a general massacre of the family of Constantius Chlorus and Theodora. Many writers, and those of such distinct views as St. Athanasius, Ammianus, and Zosimus as well as Julian, openly charge Constantius with being the author of this great crime, others imply only that he allowed it. Constantine and Constans are in no way implicated in it. A new division of empire followed; for which purpose the brothers met at Sirmium. Speaking generally, Constantine had the west, Constans the centre, and Constantius the East.

From the division of empire between Constans and Constantius we must date the beginnings of separation of the churches. The Eastern church recovered indeed at length from Arian and semi-Arian influences, but the habit of division had been formed and varieties of theological conception became accentuated; then the Roman church grew rapidly in power and independence, having no rival of any pretensions in the West, while in the East the older apostolic sees were gradually subordinated to that of Constantinople, and the whole church was constantly distracted by imperial interference.

Constantius was especially ready to intervene. In 341, in deference to the Dedication Council of Antioch, he forcibly intruded one Gregorius into the see of Alexandria; in 342 he sent his magister equitum, Hermogenes, to drive Paulus from Constantinople, but he did not confirm Macedonius, the rival claimant (Socr. ii.13). These events took place while St. Athanasius was received with honour at the court of Constans, for whose use he had prepared some books of Holy Scripture (Athan. Apolog. ad Const.4). Constans determined to convoke another oecumenical council, and obtained his brother's concurrence. The place fixed upon was Sardica, on the frontier of the Eastern and Western empires, where about 170 bishops met in 343. Then occurred the first great open rupture between East and West, the minority consisting of Western bishops siding with St. Athanasius, while the Eastern or Eusebian faction seceded to Philippopolis across the border. After the dissolution of the council Constans still attempted to enforce the decrees of Sardica, by requiring of his brother the restoration of Athanasius and Paulus, threatening force if it was refused (Socr. ii.22; Soz. iii.20). The shameful plots of the Arian bp. of Antioch, Stephen, against the messengers of Constans were happily discovered, and the faith of Constantius in the party was somewhat shaken (St. Athan. Hist. Arian. ad mon.20; Theod. ii.9, 10). The pressure of the war with Persia no doubt inclined him to avoid anything like a civil war, and be put a stop to some of the Arian persecutions. Ten months later -- after the death of the intruded Gregory -- he invited St. Athanasius to return to his see, which Athanasius did in 346, after a curious interview with the emperor at Antioch (see the letters in Socr. ii.23 from Athan. Apol. c. Arianos, 54 f.). Other exiled bishops were likewise restored. In the West, meanwhile, Constans was occupied with the Donatists, whose case had been one of the elements of division at Sardica. He sent a conciliatory mission to Africa, but his bounty was rudely refused by that Donatus who was now at the head of the sect -- himself a secret Arian as well as a violent schismatic -- with the famous phrase, |Quid est imperatori cum ecclesiâ?| The turbulence of the Circumcellions provoked the so-called |Macarian Persecution|; some of the schismatics were put to death, others committed suicide, others were exiled, and so for a time union seemed to be produced. (Bright, pp.58-60 ; Hefele, § 70, Synod of Carthage. The history is in Optatus Milev. iii.1, 2.) Early in the year 350 Constans was put to death, or rather forced to commit suicide, by the partisans of the usurper Magnentius. His death was a great loss to the orthodox party, whose sufferings during the next ten years were most intense.

Period ii., 350-361. Constantius sole Augustus. -- The usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul seems to have been largely a movement of paganism against Christianity and of the provincial army against the court. It was closely followed by another, that of Vetranio in Illyria. We need not follow the strange history of these civil wars, nor recount in detail how Vetranio was overcome by the eloquence of Constantius in 350, and Magnentius beaten in the bloody battle of Mursa, Sept.351, that cost the Roman empire 50,000 men. Between these two events Constantius named his cousin, Gallus, Caesar and attended the first council of Sirmium. Some time before the battle he must have received the letter from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, describing a cross of light which appeared |on May 7, about the third hour,| |above the holy Golgotha and stretching as far as the holy mount of Olives,| and seen by the whole city. St. Cyril praises Constantius and reports this marvel as an encouragement to him in his campaign. The genuineness of the letter has however been doubted, especially from the word |consubstantial| appearing in the doxology at the end. At the time of the battle of Mursa Constantius came much under the influence of Valens, the temporizing bishop of the place, who pretended that the victory was revealed to him by an angel, and from this time he appears more distinctly as a persecutor of the Nicene faith, which he endeavoured to crush in the West. His general character also underwent a change for the worse after the unexpected suicide of Magnentius, which put him in sole possession of the empire. It is difficult to say whether he appears to least advantage in the pages of Ammianus or of St. Athanasius. It would take too long to recount the disgraceful proceedings at the council of Arles in 353, where the legates of the new Pope Liberius were misled, or at Milan in 355, when Constantius declared that his own will should serve the Westerns for a canon as it had served the Syrian bishops, and proceeded to banish and imprison no less than 147 of the chief orthodox clergy and laity (Hist. Ar. ad Mon.33, etc.; see De Broglie, iii. p.263). The most important sufferers were Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionysius of Milan. Soon after followed the exile of Liberius, and in 355 that of Hosius. All this was intended to lead up to the final overthrow of Athanasius. Early in 356, Syrianus, the duke of Egypt, began the open persecution of the Catholics at Alexandria, and Constantius, when appealed to, confirmed his actions and sent Heraclius to hand over all the churches to the Arians, which was done with great violence and cruelty (Hist. Ar.54.). George of Cappadocia was intruded into the see, and Athanasius was forced to hide in the desert. In the same year Hilary of Poictiers was banished to Phrygia.

Meanwhile Constantius had been carrying on a persecution of even greater rigour against the adherents of Magnentius, which is described by Ammianus (xiv.5), whose history begins at this period. His suspicions were also aroused against his cousin Gallus, whose violence and misgovernment in the East, especially in Antioch, were notorious. The means by which Constantius lured him into his power and then beheaded him are very characteristic (Amm. xiv.11). At the end of the same year, 355, he determined to make his younger brother, Julian, Caesar in his place, putting him over the provinces of Gaul, and marrying him to his sister Helena.

In the church worse things were yet to come: the fall of Hosius, who accepted the creed of the second council of Sirmium, then that of Liberius, the first after torture and severe imprisonment, the second after two years of melancholy exile, both in 357. Of the numerous councils and synods at this time, the most famous and important was that of Rimini in 359, in conjunction with one in the East at Seleucia, when the political bishops succeeded in carrying an equivocal creed approved by the emperor, and omitting the homoousion. Constantius, tired of the long controversy, attempted to enforce unity by imposing the formula of Rimini everywhere, and a number of bishops of various parties were deposed (Soz. iv.23, 24). In 360 Julian was proclaimed Augustus by his army, and proposed a division of the empire, which Constantius did not accept (Amm, xx.8). A civil war was impending: Constantius was at first contemptuous, but ere long began to be haunted with fears of death, and caused himself to be baptized by Euzoius, the Arian bp. of Antioch. He expired, after a painful illness, at Mopsucrene at the foot of mount Taurus, Nov.4., 361 (Socr. ii.47; Amm. xxi.15). He was at least three times married: in 352 or 353, after the successful issue of the civil war, to Aurelia Eusebia, a very beautiful, accomplished, and gentle lady, but an Arian, who had great influence with him. She died some time before the usurpation of Julian. Besides his wives, on whom he was accustomed to lean, his chief adviser was the eunuch Eusebius, of whom Ammianus says so sarcastically, |apud quem, si vere dici debet, multum Constantius potuit.| He also trusted much to a detestable man the notary Paulus, nicknamed Catena. Another of the same class was Mercurius, called Comes Somniorum. These men, with an army of spies (curiosi), organized a reign of terror for three years after the overthrow of Magnentius, especially in Britain, acting particularly on the laws against sacrifice and magic (cf. Liban. pro Aristophane, i. p.430).

Laws in Favour of Christianity. -- These will be found chiefly in the second title of book xvi. of the Theodosian code, headed de episcopis ecclesiis et clericis. In 357 the emperor confirmed all the privileges granted to the church of Rome, at that time under the emperor's nominee, Felix, whilst Liberius was in exile. Another rescript of the same year is addressed to Felix, more explicitly guaranteeing the immunity from taxation and forced service. The next law (a.d.360) refers to the synod of Rimini, and the opinion expressed by various bishops from different parts of Italy, and from Spain and Africa. The last law in the series (in 361) is remarkable, as the heading gives Julian the title of Augustus.

Relations to Heathenism. -- The state of things that we have seen in the last years of Constantine continued during his son's reign. There was the same disposition on the part of the empire to put down paganism and the same elements of reaction. In the West, especially in Rome, real heathenism still retained much of its vitality and still swayed the minds of the aristocracy and the populace; in the East the supporters of the old religion were the philosophers and rhetoricians, men more attached to its literary and artistic associations than prepared to defend polytheism as a creed. They were mixed up with another class, the theurgists, practisers of a higher kind of magic which was particularly attractive to Julian. The following laws from the tenth title of book xvi. of the Theodosian code relate distinctly to heathen sacrifice. Sec.2, in 341, issued by Constantius, says: |Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania,| and refers to the law of Constantine noticed above. A year or two later (the date is uncertain and wrongly given in the code), Constantius and Constans ordered the temples in Roman territory to be kept intact for the pleasure of the Roman people, though all |superstition| is to be eradicated; almost at the same time they issued a law to the praetorian prefect inflicting death and confiscation on persons sacrificing. In 353 Constantius forbade the |nocturna sacrificia| permitted by Magnentius: in 356 he and Julian made it capital to sacrifice or worship images.

[J.W.]

Cornelius (2), bp. of Rome
Cornelius (2), bp. of Rome, successor of Fabianus, said to have been son of Castinus. After the martyrdom of Fabianus in Jan.250, in the Decian persecution, the see remained vacant for a year and a half. In June, a.d.251, Cornelius was elected to the vacant post; and, although very reluctantly, he accepted an election almost unanimously made by both orders, during the life of a tyrant who had declared that he would rather see a new pretender to the empire than a new bishop of Rome (Cyprian., Ep. Iii.). Decius was at that time absent from Rome, prosecuting the Gothic war which ended in his death in the winter of the same year. The persecution of the Christians thus came to an end; but then arose the difficult question of how to treat the libellatici, Christians who had bought their life by the acceptance of false certificates of having sacrificed to heathen gods. Cornelius took a line at variance with that of Cyprian and the church of Carthage, which required rigorous penance as the price of readmission, while Rome prescribed milder terms. The difference was kept alive by the discontent of the minority within both the churches. This was represented at Carthage by Novatus, who separated from the church when unable to obtain less harsh terms; in Rome by a man of similar name, Novatian, who was in favour of greater rigour than the church would allow. Novatus crossed the sea to aid Novatian in designs at Rome which must have been directly opposed to his own at Carthage. Mainly by his influence Novatian was consecrated a bishop, and thus constituted the head of a schismatic body in Rome. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi.43) quotes from a letter of bp. Cornelius to bp. Fabius of Antioch, in which he gives an account of his rival, with statistics as to the number of Roman clergy in his day. These were 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, 52 readers and ostiarii; 1,500 widows and orphans were provided for by the church.

The Novatianist heresy gave rise to a correspondence between Cyprian and Cornelius. Persecution was revived in Rome by Gallus, and Cornelius, followed by almost the whole church (among whom were many restored libellatics), took refuge at Centumcellae in Etruria. There Cornelius died, and another bishop, Lucius, was at the head of the church when it returned. It is doubtful whether Cornelius died a violent death. Cyprian and Jerome both speak of him as a martyr. He died Sept.14, 252. His name as a martyr has been found in the Catacombs at some little distance from those of other popes, and in a cemetery apparently devoted almost exclusively to the gens Cornelia, whence De Rossi argues that he probably belonged to that patrician gens (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow, pp.177-183).

[G.H.M.]

Cosmas (1) and Damianus, silverless martyrs
Cosmas (1) and Damianus, brothers, physicians, |silverless| martyrs. They became types of a class, the anarguroi, |silverless| martyrs, i.e. physicians who took no fees, but went about curing people gratis, and claiming as their reward that those whom they benefited should believe in Christ. They were certainly not earlier than the last quarter of the 3rd cent., and the legends of martyrs of that time, whose fame is known only by popular tradition, seem in many cases to succeed naturally to the place of those heathen myths that were slowest to die. For Hercules, Christopher; for Apollo, Sebastian; for Diana, Ursula; for Proserpine, Agnes. Cosmas and Damian take the place of Aesculapius, in whose story heathenism made the nearest approach to Christianity. The Greeks distinguished three pairs of these brothers. (1) July 1, in the time of Carinus; (2) Oct.27, Arabs, with their brothers, Anthimus, Leontius, and Euprepius, martyred under Diocletian; (3) Nov.1, sons of Theodote. (Menol.) For the legends connected with them see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). The names were early inserted in the Canon of the Mass.

[E.B.B.]

Cosmas (3), Indian navigator
Cosmas (3), surnamed Indicopleustes (Indian navigator), a native of Egypt, probably of Alexandria (lib. ii.114, vi.264), originally a merchant (lib. ii.132, iii.178, xi.336), who flourished about the middle of the 6th cent. In pursuit of his mercantile business he navigated the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf, also visiting India and Ceylon. His travels enabled Cosmas to collect a large store of information respecting not only the countries he visited, but also the more remote lands whose merchants he met. Weary of the world and its gains, he resigned his occupation as a merchant, and, embracing a monastic life, devoted his leisure to authorship, enriching his writings with descriptions of the countries he had visited and with facts he had observed or learned from others. He was no retailer of travellers' wonders, and later researches have proved that his descriptions are as faithful as his philosophy is absurd. His Christian Topography (12 books) is his only work which has survived; the last book is deficient in the Vatican MS. and imperfect in the Medicean. The work was not all published at one time, nor indeed originally planned in its present extent; but gradually grew as book after book was added by him at the request of his friends, or to meet the objections of the opponents of his theory. The proximate date, a.d.547, for the earlier books is afforded by the statement (lib. ii.140) that, when he wrote, 25 years had elapsed since the expedition of Elesbaon, king of the Axiomitae, against the Homeritae, which Pagi ad ann. dates a.d.522. The later works were written about 113 years subsequently. Near the end of lib. x. he speaks of the recent death of Timotheus, patriarch of Alexandria, a.d.536, and mentions his heretical successor Theodosius, a.d.537.

The chief design of the Christian Topography is |to confute the impious heresy of those who maintain that the earth is a globe, and not a flat oblong table, as is represented in the Scriptures| (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xlvii. § i. note i.). The old objections of the Epicureans are revived, and the plane surface is not circular as with Thales, but a parallelogram twice as long as broad, surrounded by the ocean. Its length from E. to W. is 12,000 miles; its breadth from N. to S.6,000. The parallelogram is symmetrically divided by four gulfs; the Caspian (which joins the Ocean), the Arabian (Red Sea), the Persian, and that of the Romans (Mediterranean). Beyond the ocean, on each side of the interior continent, lies another land, in which is the Garden of Eden. Here men lived till the Deluge, when Noah and his family crossed the intervening flood in the Ark, and peopled the present world. The rivers of Paradise he supposes to run under the sea, Alpheus-like, and to reappear in our earth. The Nile is the Gihon of Eden. The whole area is surrounded by lofty perpendicular walls, from the summit of which the sky stretches from N. to S. in a cylindrical vault, meeting similar vaults at either extremity (lib. iv.186, 187). Our author divides this huge vaulted chamber into lower, second, and third stories. The dead occupy the nethermost division; the middle compartment is the home of the living; the uppermost, that of the blessed. Heaven is divided from the lower regions by a solid firmament, through which Christ penetrated -- and that is the Kingdom of Heaven (lib. iv.186-188). The vicissitudes of day and night are caused by a mountain of enormous bulk, rising at the N. extremity of the oblong area. Behind this the sun passes in the evening, and reappears on the other side in the morning. The conical shape of the mountain produces the variation in the length of the night; as the sun rises higher above, or sinks down towards the level of the earth. Eclipses are due to the same cause. The round shadow on the moon's disk is cast by the domical summit of the mountain (lib. iv.188).

The views on cosmography thus propounded, absurd and irrational as they appear to us, were those generally entertained by the Fathers of the church. Pinning their faith on the literal meaning of the words of Scripture according to its traditional interpretation, they deduced a system which had for them all the authority of a divine revelation, any departure from which was regarded as impious and heretical. The arguments by which Cosmas supports his theory are chiefly built on isolated passages of Scripture, as interpreted by the early Fathers. Some, however, are drawn from reason and the nature of the case -- e.g, the absurdity of the supposition of the existence of antipodean regions, inasmuch as the beings on the other side of the world must drop off, and the rain would fall upwards instead of downwards; while the supposed rotatory motion of the universe is disproved by the disturbance that would be caused to the repose of the blessed in heaven by their being perpetually whirled through space. Cosmas denounces as heretics those who, following the false lights of science, venture to maintain opposite views, and speaks in terms of strongest condemnation of |men who assume the name of Christians, and yet in contempt of Holy Scripture join with the pagans in asserting that the heavens are spherical. Such assertions are among the weapons hurled at the church. Inflamed by pride as if they were wiser than others, they profess to explain the movements of the heavens by geometrical and astronomical calculations| (lib. i. Prolog.). One of his strongest arguments in support of his plan of the universe is drawn from the form of the Tabernacle of Witness, which the words hagion kosmikon (Heb. ix. i) warrant him in considering to have been like Noah's Ark, expressly constructed as an image of the world.

The subjects of the 12 books are: (1) Against those who claim to be Christians, and assert with pagans that the earth is spherical. (2) The Christian hypothesis as to the figure and position of the universe proved from Scripture. (3) The agreement on these points of the O.T. and N.T. (4) A brief recapitulation, and a description of the figure of the universe according to Scripture, and a confutation of the sphere. (5) A description of the Tabernacle and the agreement of the Prophets and Apostles. (6) The magnitude of the sun (7) The duration of the heavens. (8) Hezekiah's song, and the retrogression of the sun. (9) The course of the stars. (10) Testimonies of the Fathers, including 11 citations from the Festal Epistles of Athanasius, and other important Patristic fragments. (11) A description of the animals of India, and of the island of Ceylon. (12) Testimonies of heathen writers to the antiquity of Holy Scripture.

Setting aside the absurdities of his cosmographical system Cosmas is one of the valuable geographical writers of antiquity. His errors were those of his age, and rest chiefly on his reverence for the traditional interpretation of the Bible. But he was an acute observer and vivid describer, and his good faith is unquestionable. He seems well acquainted with the Indian peninsula, and names several places on its coast. He describes it as the chief seat of the pepper trade, of which he gives a very rational account, and mentions Mali, in which Montfaucon recognizes the origin of Malabar, as much frequented by traffickers in that spice. He furnishes a detailed account of the island of Taprobana (Ceylon), which he calls Sielidiba, then the principal centre of trade between China (he calls the Chinese Tzinitzai) and the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, where the merchants exchanged their costly wares, and the nations of the East obtained the advantages of commercial intercourse, which rapidly increased and had in his time assumed considerable importance. The connexion between Persia and India was at that time evidenced by the existence of a large number of Christian churches, both on the coast of India and the islands of Socotra and Ceylon, served by priests and deacons ordained by the Persian archbp. of Seleucia and subject to his jurisdiction, which had produced multitudes of faithful martyrs and monks (lib. iii.179). These congregations appear to be identical with the Malabar Christians of St. Thomas. His 11th book contains a very graphic. and faithful description of the more remarkable animal and vegetable productions of India and Ceylon, the rhinoceros, elephant, giraffe, hippopotamus, etc., the cocoa-nut tree, pepper tree, etc.

His remarks on Scripture manifest a not altogether uncommon mixture of credulity and good sense. He mentions that, to the discomfiture of unbelievers, the marks of the chariot wheels of the Egyptians were still visible at Clysma, where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea (v.194); but he explains the supposed miraculous preservation of the garments of the Israelites (Deut. xxix.5) as meaning no more than that they lacked nothing, since merchants visited them from adjacent countries with clothing and with the wheat of which the shewbread was made (v.205). The catholic epistles he plainly relegates to the |Amphilegomena,| making the erroneous statement. that such was the universal ancient tradition and that no early expositor comments upon them. The Ep. to the Hebrews he ascribes to St. Paul, and asserts that it, as well as the Gospel of St. Matt., was rendered into Gk. by St. Luke or St. Clement. Cosmas preserves a monument of very considerable historical value, consisting of two inscriptions relating to Ptolemy Euergetes, b.c.247-222, and an unnamed king of the Axumitae, of later date. These were copied by him from the originals at the entrance of the city of Adule, an Aethiopian port on the Red Sea; the former from a wedge-shaped block of basanite or touch-stone, standing behind a white marble chair, dedicated to Mars and ornamented with the figures of Hercules and Mercury, on which the latter inscription was engraved. Notwithstanding the different localities of the inscriptions and the fact that the third person is used in the former, the first in the latter, the two have been carelessly printed continuously and regarded as both relating to the conquests of Ptolemy, who has been thus accredited with fabulous Aethiopian conquests. (So in Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. lib. iii.25; cf. ,Vincent, Commerce, ii.533-589.) They were first distinguished from each other by Mr. Salt (Voyages and Travels to India, etc., 1809, vol. iii.192; Travels in Abyssinia, 1814, p.412), and are printed with full comments by Böckh (Corpus Inscript. Graec.1848, vol. iii. fasc. ii.508-514). The inscription relating to Ptolemy describes his conquest of nearly the whole of the empire of the Seleucidae, in Asia, which, says Dean Vincent (Ancient Commerce, ii.531), |was scarcely discovered in history till this monument prompted the inquiry, and was then established on proofs undeniable.| Cf. Chishull, Antiq. Asiat. p.76; Niebuhr, Vermischte Schriften, p.401; Letronne, Matériaux pour l'hist. du Christianisme en Egypte, etc. (1832), p.401; Buttmann, Mus. der Alterthumsw. ii.1, p.105.

A full account of this work is given by Photius (Cod. xxxvi.), under the inappropriate title Hermeneia eis Oktateuchon, but without the author's name. From this, Fabricius very needlessly questions whether the author was really named Cosmas, or whether that was an appellation coined to suit the subject of the work, like that of Joannes Climacus. Photius censures the homeliness of the style, which he considers hardly to approach mediocrity. But elegance or refinement of diction is not to be expected from a writer, who, in his own words (lib. ii.124), destitute of literary training and entangled in business, had devoted his whole life to mercantile pursuits, and had to contend against the disadvantages of very infirm health and weak eyesight, incapacitating him for lengthened study. We learn from his own writings that Cosmas also wrote:

(1) A Cosmographia Universalis, dedicated to a certain Constantine (lib. i.113), the loss of which is lamented with tears by Montfaucon.

(2) A work on the motions of the universe and the heavenly bodies, dedicated to the deacon Homologus (lib. i.114, vii.274).

(3) Hupomnemata on the Canticles, dedicated to Theophilus (lib. vii.300).

(4) Exposition of the more difficult parts of the Psalms (Du Cange, Gloss. Graec. s.v. Indikopleustes; Bibl. Coislin. p.244).

(Montfaucon, Collect. Nov. Pat. Gk. (Paris, 1706), vol. ii.113-346; Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr. (Ven.1765), vol. ix.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.515; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. iii.25; Vincent, Commerce, ii.505-511, 533-537, 567; Bredow, Strabo, ii.786-797; Thevenot, Coll. des voyages, vol. i.; Gosselin, Géogr. syst. des Grecs, iii.274; Mannert, Einleit. in der Geogr. d. Alien, 188-192; Charton, Voyages, vol. ii.)

[E.V.]

Cyprianus (1) Thascius Caecilius
Cyprianus (1) Thascius Caecilius. Name. -- He is styled Thascius Cyprianus by the proconsul (Vit. Pontii), and styles himself |Cyprianus qui et Thascius| in the singular heading of Ep.66. He took the name Caecilius, according to Jerome (Cat. Ill. Vir. v.), from the presbyter who converted him, and is called Caecilius Cyprianus in the proscription (Ep.66).

Cyprian was an orator, and afterwards even a teacher of rhetoric (|in tantam gloriam venit eloquentiae ut oratoriam quoque doceret Carthagini,| Hieron. Comm. Jon. c.3, and cf. Aug. Serm.312, § 4). It is not quite clear what is meant by Jerome in speaking of him as a former |adsertor idololatriae,| and Augustine as |having decorated the crumbling doctrines of demons.| His style is very polished, and, as Augustine points out, became more simple and beautiful with time, and (as his critic believed) with the purer taste of Christianity. He edited for Christians the phraseological dictionary of Cicero (see Hartel's praef. ad fin.). His systematic habits and powers of business contributed greatly to his success as the first of church organizers. His address was dignified, conciliatory, affectionate; his looks attractive by their grave joyousness. He never assumed the philosopher's pall, which Tertullian his |master| maintained to be the only dress for Christians; he thought its plainness pretentious. Augustine speaks of the tradition of his gentleness, and he never lost the friendship of heathens of high rank (Pont.14). He was wealthy, his landed property considerable, and his house and gardens beautiful (Pont. Vit. ad Don. i. xv. xvi.).

His conversion was then important in the series of men of letters and law who were at this time added to the church, and who so markedly surpass in style and culture their heathen contemporaries. Pearson rightly sets aside the inference of Baronius (from De Dei gratia) that Cyprian was old at his conversion, but that he was so seems to be stated, however obscurely, by Pontius (c.2, |adhuc rudis fidei et cui nondum forsitan crederetur supergressus vetustatis actatem|). Christian doctrines, especially that of regeneration, had previously excited his wonder, but not his derision (ad Don. iii. iv.). He was converted by an aged presbyter, Caecilian. During his catechesis he analysed and conversed with the circle about him on Scripture Lives, devoted himself to chastity, and sold some estates and distributed the proceeds to the poor. He composed, in his Quod Idola dii non sint, a Christian assault on Polytheism, freely compiling the 1st and 2nd sections of his tract from Minucius, § 20-27, § 18, § 32, and his 3rd section from Tertullian's Apology, § 21-23, with some traces of Tert. de Anima naturaliter Christiana. A comparison of this pamphlet with the originals well illustrates his ideal of style. He mainly retains the very language, but erases whatever seemed rugged, ambiguous, or strained. He maintains a historical kernel of mythology, points out the low character of indigenous Roman worship; illustrates the activity of deluding daemons from the scenes at exorcisms, of which, however, he scarcely seems (as Tertullian does) to have been an eyewitness. He contrasts this with the doctrine of Divine unity, which he describes nobly, but illustrates infelicitously. The history of Judaism, its rejection of its Messiah, and the effects which Christianity is producing in the individual and commencing on society bring him to his new standpoint. He is perhaps the first writer who uses the continuous sufferings of believers as evidence of their credibility. This restatement and co-ordination of previous arguments was probably not ineffective, but as yet Cyprian exhibits no conception that Christianity is to be a world-regenerating power. He deliberately excludes providence from history (Quod Id. v.).

At the Easter following, the season most observed in Africa for this purpose, he was probably baptized, and to the autumn after we refer the ad Donatum, a monologue, a brief Tusculan held in his own villa, on The Grace of God. It already exhibits Cyprian not as a spiritual analyst or subtle theologian, but irrefragable in his appeals to the distinctly New Life which has appeared in the world, amid the contemporary degradations -- the repudiation of the responsibility of wealth, the disruption of the client-bond, the aspect of the criminal classes, the pauperization of the mass, and the systematic corruption by theatre and arena. For the present, however, withdrawal from the world into Christian circles is the only remedy in which he can hope. |Divine Grace| is an ascertained psychological fact, and this, though as yet narrow in application, is the subject of the treatise.

He soon after sold, for the benefit of the poor, his horti, which some wealthy friends bought up afterwards and presented to him again. Meantime he resided with Caecilian. We can only understand the expression of Pontius (who lived similarly as a deacon with Cyprian), |erat sane illi etiam de nobis contubernium . . . Caeciliani,| to mean that he was at that time |of our body,| the diaconate. We find other instances of the closeness of this bond. Baronius and Bp. Fell are equally inexcusable in understanding what is said of Caecilian's family and of Job's wife as having any bearing upon the question of Cyprian's celibacy. There is no indication of his having been married. Caecilian at his death commended his family to him, although not as officially curator or tutor, which would have contradicted both Christian and Roman usage.

His Ordination. -- His activity while a member of the ordo or concessus of presbyters is noticed, but he was yet a neophyte when he became bishop. The step was justified on the ground of his exceptional character, but the opposition organized by five presbyters was now and always a serious difficulty to him. The Plebes would listen to no refusal, and frustrated an attempt to escape. He subsequently rests his title (Ep.43, Ep.66, Vit.) on their suffrages, and on the |judicium Dei,| with the consensus of his fellow bishops. In ordinary cases he treats the election by neighbour bishops as necessary to a valid episcopate (Ep.57, v.; Ep.59, vii.; Ep.66). From this time Cyprian is usually addressed both by others and by the Roman clergy as Papa, though the title is not attributed to the bp. of Rome until long after. An earlier instance of the use of the name occurs at Alexandria, but probably the first application of the name is traceable to Carthage. Some time between July 248 and April 249 Cyprian became bishop, a few months before the close of the |thirty years' peace| of the church.

His Theory of the Episcopal Office seems to have been his own already, and as it supplies the key to his conception of church government may be stated at once. The episcopate succeeded to the Jewish priesthood (Epp.8, i.; 69, viii.; 65; 67, i.; Testim. iii.85); the bishop was the instructor (Ep.50, xi.; Unit. x.) and the judge (Ep.17, ii.). In this latter capacity he does nothing without the information and advice of presbyters, deacon, and laity. He is the apostle of his flock (Ep.3, iii.; 45; 66, iv.) by direct succession, and the diaconate is the creation of his predecessors. The usual parallel between the three orders of the Christian and Jewish ministry differs entirely from that drawn by Cyprian.

The stress laid on the responsibility of the laity is very great. Though the virtue of the office is transmitted by another channel, it is they who, by the |aspiration of God,| address to each bishop his call to enter on that |priesthood| and its grace, and it is their duty to withdraw from his administration if he is a |sinner| (Ep.67). The bishops do not co-opt into or enlarge their own college. Each is elected by his own Plebes. Hence he is the embodiment of it. |The bishop is in the church and the church in the bishop.| They have no other
representatives in councils; he is naturally their |member.| These views appear fully developed in his first epistle, and in the application of texts in his early Testimonies; it is incredible that they should have been borrowed from paganism, and unhistorical to connect them with Judaizers. They are (although Cyprian does not dwell on this aspect) not incompatible with a recognition of the priesthood of the laity as full as that of Tertullian. The African episcopate had declined in character during the long peace; many bishops were engaged in trade, agriculture, or usury, some were conspicuously fraudulent or immoral or too ignorant to instruct catechumens and avoid using heretical compositions in public prayers (de Laps.4; Ep.65, iii.; Auct. de Rebapt. ix.; Aug. c. Don. vii.45; Resp. ad Epp. [Sedatus]). Similarly among the presbyters strange occupations were possible (Tert. de Idol. cc.7-9) and unmarried deacons shared their chambers with spiritual sisters who maintained their chastity to be unimpaired. The effect of the persecution was salutary on this state of things, and was felt to be so. To the eighteen months of |peace| which remained belong his Epp.1-4, and the treatise on the dress of virgins, which answers to his description of his employment as |serving discipline| during that interval. In three of the letters his authority is invoked beyond his diocese, and wears something of a metropolitan aspect. Otherwise it is to be noticed that the African bishops rank by seniority. To these letters Mr. Shepherd has taken objections, which, if valid, would be fatal to the genuineness of much of the Cyprianic correspondence; but a rigorous investigation of those objections is conclusive in favour of the epistles.

De Habitu Virginum. -- Many Christian women lived, as a |work of piety,| the self-dedicated life of virgins in their own homes. Tertullian had killed the fashion of going unveiled, which some had claimed as symbolic of childlike innocence, yet with the avowed object of rendering their order attractive. Vanity, sentiment, and the sense of security were still mischievous elements, and Cyprian writes mainly against the extravagant fashions, half Roman, half Tyrian, in which the wealthier sisters appeared. His book, though in language drawing largely from Tertullian's treatise of similar title, resembles much more in matter and aim his Cultus Feminarum. Cyprian is here so minute and fastidious in his reduction of the violent rhetoric of Tertullian that this might almost pass for a masterly study of writing; and Augustine regards it as a very perfect work, drawing from it illustrations both of the |grand| and of the |temperate| style (Aug. de Doctrina Christiana, bk. iv. pp.78, 86). In estimating the probable influence of this booklet on ascetic life, it is not satisfactory to find that the incentives used are partly low and partly overstrained -- the escape from married troubles, espousals with Christ, higher rank in the resurrection; while efficiency in works of charity, the power of purity, self-sacrifice and intercession, are not dwelt upon.

Testimonia ad Quirinum, libb. iii. -- These, though not certainly belonging to this time are more like his work now than afterwards They are texts compiled for a layman (filius). I. in 24 heads on the succession of the Gentile to the Jewish church. II.30 heads on the Deity, Messiahship, and salvation of Christ. III.120 on Christian duty. The skill and toil of such a selection are admirable. The importance of the text in elucidation of the Latin versions then afloat is immense, and Hartel is quite dissatisfied with what he has been able to contribute to this object (Hartel, Praefat. Cyp. p. xxiii.).

Decian Persecution. -- Cyprian's conviction of the need of external chastisements for the worldliness of the church was supported by intimations which he felt to be supernatural. The edict which began to fulfil them in the end of a.d.249 aimed at effecting its work by the removal of leaders, and at first fixed capital penalties on the bishops only (Rettberg, p.54; Ep.66, vii.). Monotheism, even when licensed (like Judaism), had an anti-national aspect, and Christianity could not be a licita religio, simply because it was not the established worship of any locality or race. In this, and in the fact that torture was applied to procure not (as in other accusations) confession but denial of the charge (Apol. ii.; Cyp. ad Demet. xii. m), in the encouragement of delation as to private meetings (Dig. xlviii.4; Cod. ix.8, iv. vi. vii.), and in the power given to magistrates under standing edicts to apply the test of sacrifice at any moment to a neighbourhood or a person, lay the various unfairnesses of which Tertullian and Cyprian complain. Dionysius of Alexandria, and with him Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Maximus of Nola, Babylas of Antioch, Alexander of Jerusalem, Fabian of Rome, were all attacked, the last three martyred. There was no fanaticism of martyrdom as yet. It seemed wrong to expose a successor to instant death, and no bishop was elected for 16 months at Rome. Like the former three, Cyprian placed himself (before the end of Jan.; Lipsius, Röm. Bisch. Chronol. p.200) out of reach, and, with the same determination with which he afterwards pronounced that his time was come, refused concealment. The grounds for his retirement, consistently stated by himself, are the necessity of continuing the administration (Ep.12, i. v. vi.), the danger which at Carthage he would have attracted to others (Epp.7, 14.), the riots it would have aroused (Ep.43), and the insistence of Tertullus (Epp.12, 14.). The Cyprianic epistles of this period, passing between the Roman presbyters, the Carthaginian bishop and certain imprisoned presbyters (Moyses, Maximus), deacons (Rufinus and Nicostratus), laymen, and particularly an imperfectly educated Carthaginian confessor Celerinus (whose ill-spelt letters Epp.21 and 22 are extant), present, when worked out, a tesselated coherence with each other and with slight notices in Eusebius (vi.43), which is absolutely convincing as to the originality and genuineness of the documents.

The Lapsi. -- Five commissioners in each town and the proconsul on circuit (Epp.43, iii.; 10; 56) administered the Decian edict. The sufferings by torture, stifling imprisonments, and even fire (14, 21) were very severe (Ep.22). Women and boys were among the victims. Exile and confiscation were employed. In the first terror there was a large voluntary abjuration of Christianity, whether literally by |the majority of his flock| (Ep.11) may be uncertain, but Cyprian felt himself |seated in the ruins of his house.| Scenes of painful vividness are touched in, but these must be passed by. Many of the clergy fell or fled, leaving scarcely enough for the daily duty of the city (Epp.34, iv.; 40; 29), as did many provincial bishops (Epp.11, 59). Different classes of those who conformed were the Thurificati, Sacrificati (the more heinous) (Ep.59), and LIBELLATICI, (q.v. in D. C. A., as also LIBELLI), whose self-excision was less palpable. Of this class there were some thousands (Ep.24).

Formation of a General Policy. -- Cyprian from his retirement guided the policy of the whole West upon the tremendous questions of church communion which now arose. (1)
Indifferentism offered the lapsed an easy return by means of indulgences from, or in the names of, martyrs. (2) Puritanism barred all return. The Roman clergy first essayed to deal with the question in conjunction with the clergy of Carthage independently of Cyprian, whose absence they invidiously deplore (Ep. viii.). Their letter was returned to them by Cyprian himself, with some caustic remarks on its style (which are singularly incorrect; see Hartel's Praefatio, xlviii.) as well as on the irregularity of the step. After this an altered tone, and Novatian's marked style, is discernible in their letters (Epp.30 and? 36).

The granting of indulgences (not by that name) to lapsed persons, by confessors and martyrs, which had been first questioned and then sharply criticised by Tertullian (ad Mart.1; de Pudic.22), grew very quickly under the influence of some of those clergy who had opposed Cyprian's election. The veneration for sufferers who seemed actually to be the saviours of Christianity was intense, and many heads were turned by the adulatory language of their greatest chiefs (cf. Ep. x.24). Their libelli would presently have superseded all other terms of communion.

A strange document (Ep.23) is extant in the form of an absolution to |all the lapsed| from |all the confessors,| which the bishops are desired to promulgate. Rioters in some of the provincial towns extorted communion from their presbyters (Ep.27, iii.). At Rome itself the influence of Novatian with the confessors created a tendency to strictness rather than indulgence, and there were no such disorders, but they prevailed elsewhere (Epp.27, 31, 32 ; Ep.30, iv. q. ; 30, vii.). Cyprian at once proposed by separate letters to his clergy and laity (to whom he writes with warm confidence), to various bishops, and to the Roman confessors and clergy (Epp.15, 16, 17, 26), one general course of action: to reserve all cases of lapsed, without regard to the confessors' libelli, until episcopal councils at Rome and Carthage should lay down terms of readmission for the deserving (Ep.20; 55, iv.); then the bishops, with clergy and laity (Ep.17, iv.; Ep.31) assisting, to investigate each case; public acknowledgment to be made, readmission to be by imposition of hands by bishop and clergy. Meantime the acts of the confessors to be recognized (Ep.20, iii.) so far as that persons in danger, who might hold a libellus, should be readmitted by any presbyter, or in extremis by a deacon (Epp.18, 19). All others to be exhorted to repentance, and commended with prayer to God at their deaths. The grounds he urged were -- (1) the wideness of the question, which was too large for individual discretion (totius orbis, Ep.19, iii. cf.30, vi.). (2) That if restored at once the lapsed would have fared better than those who had borne the loss of all for Christ. These principles are developed also in the de Lapsis, which, however, is not quite as M. Freppel describes it, |a résumé of the letters,| but a résumé of the modified views of Cyprian a little later. In M. Freppel's Sorbonne Lectures (St. Cyprien, pp.195-221) may be studied with profit the Ultramontane representation of this scheme as equivalent to the modern indulgence system, backed by assertions that the Roman church |indicated to Carthage the only course,| which Cyprian |fully adopted.| All, however, that the Roman clergy had recommended was mere readmission of sick penitents, without any conception of a policy, or of the method by which it could be worked. These are developed step by step in Epp.17, 18, 19, and communicated to the Roman church (Ep.20). In replying through Novatian (Ep.30, see 55 v.) the Roman presbyters re-state and adopt them (cf. Ep.31, vi.41).

Temper in Carthage. -- Through the earlier part of the above section of correspondence is perceptible a reliance on the laity. The clergy do not reply to his letters (Ep.18), they defer to the libelli, or use them against him (Ep.27). In Ep.17 he entreats the aid of the laity against them. When the concurrence of the African and Italian episcopate is obtained (Ep.43, iii.), and that of Novatian and the Roman clergy and confessors (Epp.30, 31), assuming a stronger tone (Ep.32) with his own clergy, he requires them to circulate the whole correspondence, which is done (Ep.55, iv.), and excommunication is announced against any who should allow communion except on the agreed terms.

About Nov.250, persecution relaxed (possibly owing to the Gothic advance in Thrace), and though it was still unsafe for Cyprian to return, he endeavoured to deal with the distress of sufferers who had lost their all, and to recruit the ranks of the clergy and allay the excitement among the lapsed, by a commission (vicarii) of three bishops, Caldonius, Herculanus, Victor, and two presbyters, Numidicus and Rogatian (Epp.41, 26).

Declaration of Parties. -- The excitement on the question of the lapsed is evinced by two classes of stories then afloat as to judgments following on unreconciled offences and on presumptuous communion (de Lapsis, 24, 25, 26). Cyprian employed both to urge delay, but they do not emanate from his party of moderation. At Carthage the party of laxity became prominent; at Rome, that of exclusiveness.

(1) The party of laxity was composed of confessors, spoiled by flattery (de Laps.20), fashionable lapsi, who declined all penance (Laps.30), influential ones, who had forced certain clergy to receive them, but also some clergy who united against Cyprian's policy with the five presbyters who had from the first resisted him. Of these, three were undoubtedly Donatus, Gordius, Fortunatus (Maran. Vit. Cyp. § xvii.; Rettberg, pp.97-112). That the fourth was Gaius of Didda, or Augendus, is but a guess. The principal in position and ability was the presbyter Novatus (Pearson's Jovinus and Maximus, and Pamelius's Repostus and Felix are impossible). That Cyprian's five original opponents still acted against him is shewn by |olim secundum vestra suffragia| (Ep.43, v.), though in 43, ii. he seems only to conjecture their complicity with Felicissimus, whom Novatus had associated with himself as deacon in managing a district called Mons (possibly the Bozra itself) (Epp.52, 59, 36). Cyprian complains of not having been consulted in this appointment, which, owing to the then position of the deacons, gave the party control of considerable funds. All the arrangements hitherto agreed on were disregarded by them, Cyprian's missives unanswered, and his commission of relief treated as an invasion of the diaconal office of Felicissimus, who announced, while other lapsi were at once received into communion, that whoever held communications with or accepted aid from the commission would be excluded from communion or relief from the Mons (Ep.43, ii.; Ep.41, where the conjecture in morte, or references to Monte in Numidia, or to the Montenses at Rome, who were Donatists, and were never (anciently) confused with the Novatianists or called Montanistae, are absurd; though Hefele, Novatianischer Schisms, ap. Wetzer and Welte, K. Lexik. and Conciles, t. ii. p.232, countenances these confusions). It is with the name of Felicissimus that the lax party is generally connected (Ep.43, iii. v. vii.), and he, with a fellow-deacon Augendus, a renegade bishop Repostus, and certain others, the five presbyters not among them, was presently excommunicated. There is no evidence, nor any contemporary instance, to warrant the belief that Novatus ordained Felicissimus deacon (see the MSS. reading Ep.52, |satellitem suum diaconum constituit,| which Hartel has unwarrantably departed from), nor is there any such appearance of presbyterian principles in this party, as divines of anti-episcopal churches, Neander, Rettberg, d'Aubigne, Keyser, have freely assumed. The party were in episcopal communion, took part in the episcopal election at Carthage, presently elected a new bishop for themselves, and procured episcopal consecration for him. When Novatus visited Rome, he threw himself into the election then proceeding, and, after opposing the candidate who was chosen, procured episcopal consecration for his nominee there also. Felicissimus too must have been a deacon already, or he could not have involved himself and Novatus in the charge of defrauding the church (Epp.52, i.; 50, i ).

(2) The Puritan Party. -- The strength of the Puritans, on the other hand, was in Rome. A group of confessors there, of whom the presbyters Moyses and Maximus were the chief, united with Novatian and the clergy in approving Cyprian's proposals. The modification of discipline by martyrs' merits was never countenanced here (Ep.28, ii.); nevertheless, Moyses, before his death (which probably happened on the last day of 250), had condemned the extreme tendencies of Novatian towards the non-reconcilement of penitents (see Valesius's correct interpretation of Eus. vi.43, and Routh, R. S. iii. p.81). While Cornelius at Rome and Cyprian were moving towards greater leniency than their resolutions had embodied, Novatian, without questioning the hope of salvation for the lapsed, was now for making their exclusion perpetual, and teaching that the purity of the church could not otherwise be maintained.

The earthly conditions of the invisible and visible church had not yet been discussed as the Donatists compelled them to be, and Novatian's growing error, though in the present application it completely severed him from Cyprian and the church, was not in principle different from that which Cyprian (though without producing a schism) held in relation to Baptism. Early in a.d.251 the Roman confessors were liberated; they lost whatever influence Moyses had exercised on them; they had been drawn towards Novatian, and when Novatus, arriving from Carthage, attached himself to this party, because, though its puritanism was alien to his own practices at home, it was the only opposition existing in the capital which threatened to overthrow the Cyprianic side, they were at once organized into a party to secure the election of a bp. of Rome who would break with Cyprian. The moment for election was given by the absence of Decius and his leading officers on the frontier or in Illyria on account of the base alliance of Priscus with Cniva, and the revolt of Valens. The party of moderation, however, prevailed and secured the election of Cornelius: and consecrated him in spite of himself by 16 bishops (|vim| Ep.55, vii.).

First Council. -- Cyprian returned to Carthage after Easter (Mar.23) from his 14 months' absence (biennium), which seems to have been prolonged by a fear of the |faction| (Ep.43, i.) rekindling persecution (Ep.55, v.) by some demonstration. The bishops of the province met in April for the first council, held in Carthage, for half a century [AGRIPPINUS], but the discussion on the lapsed was postponed by letters from Rome, which Cyprian laid before them, viz. Cornelius's announcement of his election (Ep.45, ii.) and a temperate protest against it from Novatian (45, iv.) (Maran, p. lx. misinterprets this against the sense of Baluze, whom he edits). The protest was soon followed by a mass of charges, which Cyprian declined to submit to the council. This was excellent policy, but at the same time a curious exercise of personal authority in that earliest type of returning freedom -- the church council. At the same time he made them dispatch two of their number, Caldonius and Fortunatus, to Rome, to report. Caldonius was instructed to procure attestations of the regularity of the ordination of Cornelius from bishops who had attended it (Ep.44 and cf.45, i.). Meantime, communications with the Roman church were to be addressed only to the clergy and not to Cornelius. (The statement of Lipsius, p.204, on Ep.45, v., is too strong.) He was also to lay before the clergy and laity, so as to guard them against clandestine influence, the whole correspondence about Felicissimus (Epp.41, 43, 45. v.). The council, then reverting to its programme, was obliged to dispatch first the question of Felicissimus, since, if he were justified in his reception of the lapsed, no terms of communion need be discussed; but if the main issue went against him they could not on such ex post facto ground deal with him disciplinarily. His offence consisted not in his theory, which might conceivably be correct, but in his readmitting people whose cases had been by due notice reserved. Cyprian, to his honour and like a good lawyer, was not present during the trial of his opponent, who was condemned. He does not employ the first person in relating it (Ep.45, v.), as he always does of councils which he attended, and from Ep.48 we must conclude that he was at Hadrumetum at that very time. The programme of the council was again interrupted still more seriously. Two African bishops fresh from Rome, Stephanus and Pompeius, had brought evidence of the regularity of Cornelius's ordination (Ep.55. vii.) as conclusive as the commissioners could have obtained, and the council had expressed itself as formally satisfied (Ep.45, i.) when four new delegates from Rome (Maximus, not the confessor; Augendus, etc.) announced the consecration of Novatian to the Roman see. This surprise (for fuller details of which see Novatian) was prepared by the party of severity, who were disappointed by the election of Cornelius, stimulated by Evaristus, whom Cyprian regarded as the author of the movement (Ep.50), and directed in their action by Novatus, who, possibly without being a mere adventurer, nor on the other hand at ail deserving Neander's characteristic exculpations, had no doctrine of his own to maintain, but came to Rome simply to endeavour to promote a supposed independence by frustrating the arrangements made by the bishops as to the reception or exclusion of the lapsed. At Carthage therefore he belonged to the broad party, at Rome to the narrow. It is a mistake to suppose that his change of party was unnoted; cf. Ep.52, iii. (4), |damnare nunc audet sacrificantium manus,| with Ep.43, iii., |nunc se ad perniciem lapsorum verterunt,| i.e. by indulgence. It is also a mistake (though Lipsius falls into it, and it is universal with the earlier writers) and introduces confusion into the history to assume that Novatus made several voyages to and fro. If his arrival be fixed soon after Mar.5, a.d.251, it will be found to solve the various problems. Their embassy to Carthage, rejected by the council (|expulsi| Ep.50, not from Africa, as Pearson), appealed to Cyprian (Ep.44). They were not prepared to find that he had moved towards leniency as much as Novatian to severity from their late common standpoint; and they are told plainly that their position must now be considered as external to the church. Accepting this, they proceed to construct a schismatic episcopal body with wide alliances. Somewhere close to this point the treatise de Unitate, or the germ of it, was first delivered in the form of a speech, or a read pamphlet, to the council. We give an outline of it later. Messengers to Cornelius (Primitivus, Mettius, Nicephorus, an acolyte) then convey full accounts of the procedure, and inform him of his general recognition as bishop. Simultaneously, appeals, which were ultimately successful, were addressed by Cyprian to the Roman confessors to detach themselves from the schism in which they found themselves involved. The original work before the council, the restoration of the lapsed, had been facilitated by the two episodes, which had cleared off the extreme parties on either side. They now listened to Cyprian's treatise on the lapsed; but they inclined to a course even milder than he suggested, while they were less disposed than he to give the |Martyres| any voice in the decisions. Their encyclical is lost, but the particulars are extricable from his Letter to Antonian (Ep.55), which, since it treats only of the restoration of the libellatici, not of the lapsed, must be earlier than the second council, a.d.252, and from the verbal resemblance of Ep.54 (3) to 55 (v.) must be very near the event. We thence gather that they resolved -- (1) On an individual examination of the libellatici; (2) Episcopal restoration of non-sacrificers after penance (Ep.55, v.); (3) Of sacrificers if penitents at death (55, xiv.); (4) No restoration of those who deferred penance till death (55, xix.) A Roman synod was held in June or July by 60 bishops of Italy, who accepted these decisions, and excommunicated Novatian. Cornelius announced the facts in four (so Tillemont correctly) Greek (so Valois correctly) letters to Antioch (Eus. vi.43), with two (non-extant) of Cyprian. Briefly to sum up the constitutional results of this first council of Carthage: 1. The views of the primate are submitted to those of the council; he admits the change (Ep.55, iii.).2. The intercession and merits of the martyrs, as affecting the conditions of restoration, are set aside entirely.3. On the other hand (as against Novatian), no offences are considered to be beyond the regular power of the church to remit.4. (against Felicissimus). No power except that of the authentic organization can fix terms of communion. It will be at once seen that the free council of bishops had taken position as a Christian institution, exercising supreme governmental functions, and had laid clear lines as to where church authority resided. They further ruled that there could be no subsequent canvassing of the claims of a bishop once ordained. The resolutions were issued in the name of the bishops only.

The Reconciliation of the Novatianist Confessors at Rome. -- A second embassy of Novatianists followed the report of the first, in order to press Cyprian home -- Primus, Dionysius, Nicostratus, Evaristus, and above all, Novatus; to whose leaving Rome Cyprian does not hesitate partly to ascribe his own next success (Ep.52 (2), ii.). Cyprian's letters to the Novatianist confessors are among the most beautiful and skilful in the collection; and Augustine cites no less than three times a passage from the letter on their return as embodying the absolute scriptural answer to puritan separations. It is the first exposition of the parable of the Tares, and St. Paul's image of the Great House. Prevailed on by the arguments used to them, and shocked by the consequences of their action, the whole party, with numerous adherents, returned to the Catholic side, and were publicly and magnanimously received, like the leaders of the same sect at Nicaea, and the Donatists at Carthage, and the Arians at Alexandria, without forfeit of dignity (Epp.49, 52, 53, 46, 54, 51). To Cyprian this was more than an occasion of Christian joy. It was the triumph of his theory (Ep.51 ad fin.). The date of this event may be accurately determined as being after the Carthaginian council (since Cyprian does not mention this as sitting, in his letters on the confessors, and he read the account of their recantation to the church, Ep.51, not to the bishops), but prior to the Roman council, or else they would have been excommunicated by it, which they evidently were not; and since Cyprian says they recanted on the departure of Novatus, it was after the second embassy had left Rome.

Treatise on Unity. -- The principles of this treatise, read in the council, and sent to the Roman confessors (Ep.54), so shape all Cyprian's policy, that it is best to notice it here. It indicates its date minutely by allusions to the severe party (Novatian's) (iii. ministros, etc., viii, uno in loco, etc., ix. feritas, x. confessor, xi. episcopi nomen, xiii. aemuli), and by the absence of allusion to the lax party (Felicissimus), whose schism must have been noticed in such a paper if the question had not been concluded. In c. v. its original form as an address to bishops is traceable. The first appearance of Cyprian's characteristic error about baptism occurs in c. xi. Its first problem is the existence of schism (as distinct from heresy), |altar against altar,| with freedom from corrupt doctrines and lives. The sole security is the ascertainment of the seat of authority and bond of unity. This is indicated by Christ's commission given once to Peter alone, yet again to all the apostles in the same terms. The oneness of the commission and the equality of the commissioned were thus emphasized. The apostleship, continued for ever in the episcopate, is thus universal, yet one: each bishop's authority perfect and independent, yet not forming with the others a mere agglomerate, but being a full tenure on a totality, like that of a shareholder in a joint-stock property. |Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur.| It is in the above definition, c. iv., that the famous interpolation has been made, which Roman authorities (Mgr. Freppel, late Professor at the Sorbonne, S. Cypyien et l'Egl. d'Afr. lect.12; Prof. Hurter, of Innspruck, SS. PP. Opuscula, v. i. p.72) even now feel it important to retain. The loss of it suggested the endeavour to make up for it by weaving together other texts from Cyprian to prove that this one after all represented his doctrine -- an attempt which would certainly never have been dreamed of if this spurious passage had not seemed to make him so strong a support. Such special pleading is performed with fullest ability by P. Ballerini (a.d.1756, de Vi ac Primatu Romm. Pontiff. xiii. § iii. ed. Westhoff, 1845). The MS. history is to be found fully in Hartel's preface, p. ix. p. xliii. It was rejected by Baluze (p. xiii. p.397 p.409, and Latini, Bib. S. p.179 and praef.) and inserted by authority in the editions by Manutius and the Benedictines. The actual origin of the interpolation is partly in marginal glosses (as Latini proved) and partly in an Ep. of Pelagius, ii. (a.d.854; Pelag. ii. Ep.6; Labbe, vol. vi. p.627; ed. Ven.1729), who produces as |terrible testimonies of the Fathers| a passage of Augustine nowhere else found, as well as this one four centuries before it made its way into a manuscript. Its introduction of the primacy of Peter as the centre of unity is a clumsy interruption of the argument and an overthrowal of Cyprian's universal principle of the |copiosum corpus Episcoporum| (Ep.68, iii.; 55, xx.) as the core of the visible unity of the church. The rest of the treatise is the development in beautiful language, and the illustration from nature and scripture, of his principle. Schism is a divine test and prejudicial separation of unbelievers in principle. Lastly, unity in the visible church must mirror the unity of God and the faith, and separations are due, not so much to individual teachings as to a radical selfishness commonly sanctioned in religious, no less than in secular, life.

The Working of the Legislation. -- The legislation had been brought out by the clergy naturally the austerer class; the one which had most inducements not to fall. It was too severe. The approach of the great plague evoked edicts for sacrifice and roused superstitions which renewed the popular feeling against Christians, and led to the magisterial and popular outbreak of a.d.252, which is too formally called the Persecution of Gallus (Ep.59, viii.), and which supernatural presages, not justified by the event, foreshewed as more cruel than that of Decius (Epp.57, vi.; 58, i.). Of the libellatics some rigorously tried to follow, others openly defied the conciliar enactments (Epp.57; 65, iii.; 68, ii.). Many palliations appeared on examination. A second council of 42 bishops at Carthage, held on May 15, 252 (Ep.59, xiii.), determined to readmit without exception or postponement all who had continued penitent. Their synodic letter (Ep.57), by Cyprian's hand, is a complete answer to his former sterner strain. The motive cause is the necessity of strengthening by communion those who will shortly be called to suffer. The Novatianists having attracted converts from heathenism and now given up hope of Cyprian, consecrated their legate Maximus to be (anti-) bishop of Carthage. The lapsed of the lax party, not being penitents, were not admissible on the new conditions; the party had increased to a number reckoned scarcely smaller than the Catholics (Ep.59, xxi.17), but the milder terms now offered would diminish them. The leaders therefore needed a more positive basis (Ep.59, xv. xvi. ), and being taunted as the only unepiscopal body among Christians (Ep.43, v.), procured the adhesion of Privatus, a deposed bishop (Ep.59, xiii.), and consecrated Fortunatus a second anti-bishop in Carthage by the hands of five bishops. This fact was immensely exaggerated (59, xiv.11), and Felicissimus sailed to Rome as legate of his new chief, hoping that a recognition might be procured for numbers which would be useful against Novatianism. They reported the unpopularity of Cyprian at Carthage, and threatened to appeal, if rejected, to the Roman laity (Ep.59, ii. iii. xxv.). Cornelius was disconcerted. Cyprian's observations on this, which begin in a half sarcastic tone (Ep.59, ii.), rise to glowing indignation, as he narrates the overwhelming work at this moment entailed on him by the examination in presence of the plebes of the returning schismatics and libellatics. The demand for strictness in readmission comes (as usual after times of trial) from the mass

The leniency of the bishop and council, the gross mistake of a rival episcopacy, and the popular claim for discipline, rapidly broke up the party (59, xxi.) and reduced its congregation to a handful.

Clerical Appeals under the Same Regulations. -- It is not safe to assert that the terms of readmission for clerics were considered separately at the second council, but immediately after it is accepted that lapsed bishops and clerks could never resume orders (Ep.55, ix.). In Ep.65 Cyprian rests this on the Levitical institution and on his own visions. In Ep.67, vi., however, he speaks of all bishops being agreed on this. In Ep.72, iii., four years later, the principle extends to presbyters and deacons who had taken part in a heresy or schism. And at first sight it presents a singularly contradictory appearance of laxity that only Novatianists and Donatists held the indelibility of orders to be such that their recanting bishops resumed their functions (Optatus, i. p.27). There are three cases: (1) Therapius, bp. of Bulla, admits Victor, a lapsed presbyter, without due penance. Fidus, bp., reports this to the third council of 67 bishops (a.d.253), considering that Victor should be re-excommunicated. The council decline to rescind the boon of |God's priest,| but censure Therapius, apparently in his place (Ep.64 -- objurgare et instruxisse), for neglecting the terms of the second council without any consultation of the laity. The same letter (ad Fidum, 64.) contains an important decision as to age of baptism. [FIDUS.] (2) Fortunatus, bp. of Assurae, lapsed, and in his place was elected Epictetus; but the lapsed party (Ep.65, v. iii.) on their return claimed for him the function and emoluments. The ground of order would have been sufficient; but Cyprian, with his characteristic error, urges the vitiation of any church function discharged by an unworthy minister, and recommends individual canvassing, if necessary, to unite the flock under Epictetus. (3) The most important case is that of Basilides and Martial, in a.d.254, when the Spanish churches of Leon, Astorga, and Merida appeal to Cyprian against the negligent decision of Stephanus, now bp. of Rome, in favour of the restoration of their lapsed bishops. The letter of the Carthaginian council of 37 bishops, a.d.254 (Ep.67), penned by Cyprian, declares the verdict of the bp. of Rome mistaken and to be disregarded. This letter also insists on the duty of a laity to withdraw from communion with a |sacrilegious| or |sinful| bishop, and marks the universal sense that there resided in a congregation no power to make valid the sacramental acts of a nominee who lacked the note of true orders (Ep.67, iii.; cf. Routh, vol. iii. p.152).

Practical Organizations and Christian Culture. -- (a) Captivity. -- During the session of the council an extensive raid was executed by the Berbers, who, severely ruled as they were without any attempt to civilize them, were beginning that steady advance on Numidia which in a few years replaced the whole range of Ferratus in their possession. In 252 their front line reached from Thubunae on the salt marsh to the terebinth forests of Tucca, and they deported large numbers of the Christians of no less than eight sees. Several inscriptions relate to this invasion (see Revue Afric. vols. iv. vii. viii.). About £800 were subscribed by the 60 bishops and Carthaginian community (Ep.62), and sent to them.

(b) Plague. -- But the great field on which the expanding powers of humanity were gathered up and animated by the church was opened by the great plague which reached Carthage in a.d.252, having travelled two years from Ethiopia through Egypt. Great physical disturbances had preceded it (ad Dem. ii.1, vii.5). The eruption and the brain affection which marked the plague of Athens are not recorded of this; nor yet the pulmonary symptoms, which, perhaps, were not developed in the African climate. The other symptoms seem to be identical, and the devastation far more awful, extensive, and enduring. It lasted 20 years; reduced the population of Alexandria by half; destroyed the armies of Valerian before Sapor; kept the Goths off the Thracian border, and for some time killed 5,000 persons daily in Rome (Eutrop. ix. v.; Hist. Aug. Galli, v. p.177; Dionys. ap. Eus. vii.22; Greg. Nys. Vit. Greg. Thaum. § 12). The efforts of the Emperors Gallus and Valerian in burying the dead were appreciated, otherwise their efforts were confined to supplications to Saturn and Apollo. (See three types of coins of Gallus in British Museum, and see Cohen, Médailles Impér. vol. iv. p.270; Bandusi, vol. i. p.58.) Horrible scenes of desertion and spoliation ensued in Carthage as in Athens (Pontii Vit. Cyp. and Cyp. ad Dem.10 , 11 ), when universal physical terror or audacity overpowered all other sentiments. As in Neo-Caesarea and Alexandria so in Carthage, the Christian clergy stood out as the first champions of life, health, and feeling. Cyprian addressed his community in a speech, which it was wished could have been delivered to the city from the rostrum, on the duty and divineness of prayer and help to the persecutors (Respondere Natalibus was his watchword), and then proposed and carried a scheme for the systematic care of the city. Filled with his motives and under his influence rich and poor undertook the parts he assigned, raised a large fund, formed a nursing staff and burial staff, and allowed no religious distinction in their ministrations. But their abstinence from religious processions and sacrifices marked the Christians as enemies of God and man, and the |overseer of the Christians| was demanded by name for a contest with a lion (Epp.59, viii.; 66, 44). The terrible work lasted on till his exile five years later, as we must conclude from Pontius's juxtaposition of the events, with his remark that exile was the reward for |withdrawing from human sight a horror like hell.|

(c) Ad Demetrianum. -- Their chief foe was an aged magistrate (sub ipso exitu Dem.25 ), not the pro-consul (Pearson), but perhaps one of the five primores, formerly an inquirer into the truth of Christianity, in Cyprian's own friendship (i.), now himself an inventor of accusations (c.2) and tortures, xii. (10). The pamphlet in which Cyprian assails him is much wider in its aim than Tertullian's ad Scapulam; both have the remonstrance against the suppression of the one natural worship, the appeal to the demeanour of the now prevalent sect (pars paene major cujusque civitatis), to the effects of exorcism, and the influence through suffering of the Christians. But while Tertullian for once refrains from denunciation, and is almost gentle in his examples of warning, Cyprian's object is wider; he answers the question, |Whence all this political and this physical misery?| The heathen answer attributed it to the divine displeasure at toleration. Cyprian accepts also a certain theory of mundane decrepitude, but bases his real reply on the general dissolution of the bonds of society; an important passage, perhaps the very earliest on slavery (viii. ), marks the exact stage reached by the Christian consciousness on this subject. So also the theory of Resentment is exhibited in a certain stage of purification, though some of the language would be intolerable now. The eternal conservation of beings for eternal suffering is laid down (xxiv.21). The most original part of the essay is the development for the first time of the theory of Probation (already struck out in his slightly earlier epistle 58 to Thibaris) as grouping the phenomena of humanity. Jerome hastily (Ep.83 ad Magn.; Lact. Inst.5, 4.) criticizes Cyprian for advancing scriptural proofs to a heathen. But (1) Demetrian already knew something of Christianity; (2) Cyprian does not quote authors' names, as to one familiar; (3) he quotes nothing but plainly fulfilled predictions. All which (as well as the classical tone and quotations) fits the case exactly, and answers Rettberg's incompetent conjecture that Demetrian is a fancy figure.

(d) On the Mortality. -- This treatise, or epistle as Augustine calls it (he quotes it no less than six times), presents to the Christians the consolatory primitive view of the topics set threateningly before Demetrian. It is meant to elevate their view of both the persecution and the plague, from which some expected providential exemptions, while others hated it only as an interference with martyrdom; he explains his theory of probation and of predictions as evidencing a divine plan. He cannot reject, but he gives a Christian turn to the general belief in the world's decay; urges organizations for relief of suffering; treats moral causes in society as affecting general and even physical phenomena. In c. xxvi. occurs what seems more than a coincidence with phrases in the Te Deum. In c. xx. he condemns the use of black for mourners.

(e) On Work and Alms. -- A pastoral, which may indeed be connected with the incidents of Ep.62, but more probably has a wider reference to the demands made by the plague and coincident troubles on the exertions and liberality of the Christians. Among circumstances known to us directly it would be more natural to link it to the great speech which Pontius mentions as having been delivered at that time to the community. Here again we find Cyprian working out the new faith into a life-system; philosophically (as in a kind of Tusculan) adjusting moral feeling and practice to the newly gained higher facts about God and Man. See cc. ix. x. xi. practically developing that |loss is gain,| and |gain is loss,| to those who are within the care of Christ, xvi. Christianity becomes a social element which uplifts the poor; their claims take precedence of family claims; the possession of a family only increases the obligation to Christ's poor. -- In xxii. is a bold passage, almost Goethesque, in which Satan apostrophizes Christ on the superior liberality of his own school. -- The doctrine of the first part i-vii. develops the unfortunate conception (roundly stated in Ep.55, xviii. ) of good works acting on sins done after baptism, as baptism acts to remit former sin. Neander (Ch. Hist. vol. i. p.391, Bohn) remarks that while this same thought appears in Tertullian (de Poenit.), yet no one person can be regarded as the author of it. It is a natural and popular materialistic germ of the doctrines of Rome on penance.

(f) The Exhortation to Confessorship is a practical manual of Scripture passages, connected by brief remarks, under 13 heads of reflection; compiled at the request of a layman, Fortunatus. Its existence sufficiently indicates the extent of suffering which a persecution developed. A more sober tone as to the perfections of the martyrs is perceptible. The introduction of the seven Maccabees not only as examples, but as a type of unity (ad Fort. xi.), dates this as later than de Unitate, where every other possible type is accumulated but not this one. The teaching on probation also marks the stage of his thoughts. He computes the world to be near 6,000 years old (ad Fort. ii.; cf. Tert. de V. V. i.).

(g) On the Lord's Prayer. -- To promote intelligent devotion was his next aim. This treatise is written with precision and with visible delight. The time is clearly shewn by his deductions on unity (xxiv.; cf. de Unit, xiv. ); on the danger of withholding communion from penitents (de Or. xviii.), and on the confessor's temptations to arrogance (xxiv.). Cyprian follows Tertullian freely, not transcribing as before; adopts the African |ne nos patiaris induci| without remark (cf. Aug. de Dono Persev. vi.12), and |fiat in caelo| (id. iii.6); illustrates more fully from Scripture, and uses a different version. His silence probably evinces Tertullian's success in remonstrating against superstitious observances in praying (Tert. Deor. xi. xvi.), and he does not, like his |master,| hail the |confusion of nations| as a mark of the kingdom; but in his expansion of the symbolism of praying thrice a day we have the earliest use of Trinitas in Latin as a name of Deity (in Tert. adv. Prax.3, it is not exactly this). In a.d.427 Augustine (Ep. ccxv.) used the treatise successfully with the monks of Adrumetum to prove the Pelagian errors contrary to the Cyprianic doctrine. He quotes this short treatise of |victoriosissimus Cyprianus| elsewhere 13 times to the same effect. Yet not one term occurs in it which became technical in that controversy -- a fact which would alone evince its early date. Mr. Shepherd, however (Fourth Letter to Dr. Maitland, 1853), has undertaken to prove that its writer was acquainted with the work of Chromatius (d. a.d.406) and is more |sacramental| than that author, Gregory Nyssen, or Chrysostom, and than Augustine's doubt as to the application of the |daily bread| allows; he observes that Venantius (6th cent.) does not use it, though his predecessor, Hilary, refers the readers of his commentary to it in preference to commenting himself; having thus satisfied himself of the lateness of the Cyprianic treatise, Mr. Shepherd therefore asperses the genuineness of the great Augustinian works which cite it. A critical comparison with Chromatius would require a minuteness and space here inadmissible, but the result of such investigation leaves no doubt that Cyprian is the middle term between Tertullian and Chromatics. Briefly, Chromatius knows no argument or illustration of Tertullian's which Cyprian has not employed; almost every one of these has in Chromatius (though a most condensed prosaic writer) some additional Cyprianic touch or colour adhering to it. Observe too Chromatius's insertion of the negative, in his qui necdum crediderun (§ iv.), in mistaken elucidation of Cyprian's obscure in illis credentibus (§ xvii.) precisely as later MSS. and editors have altered it. As to the Eucharistic language about daily bread, it is admittedly not more strong than in other Cyprianic treatises, nor visibly stronger than Chromatics. The Antiochene Fathers of course are not Eucharistic in this clause, because they followed Origen's interpretation of epiousios. Augustine will not strictly limit the petition to the Eucharist (though for singular reasons, Serm.56, 57, 58), but his more analytical, yet more mystical treatment of it is distinctly, in a later mood than the simply moral handling of Cyprian. That Venantius does not mention Cyprian in his unfinished treatise surely demands no explanation. His aim is more theological and his language very compressed. But tinges of Cyprian are perceptible in the passages on Sonship; perseverance; reigning with Christ; resistance to God's will, and ourselves being made heavenly to do it; but we may add that Ambrose's omission to comment on vv.1-5 of c. xi. is inexplicable, except for the existence of some standard treatise, such as is mentioned by Hilary (Mt. V.): |De orationis sacramento necessitate nos commentandi Cyprianus liberavit.|

Interval. -- Cornelius's exile, with others, to Civita Vecchia, his decease in June 253, as a martyr, in the then sense of the word, the short episcopate of Lucius, his exile, speedy return, and death, not later than Mar.5, a.d.254 (Cyp. Epp.60, 61, 67, 68), find place in Cyprian's correspondence, not without some undue exaggerations, as when he compares the reappearance of Lucius to that of John Baptist, as heralding the advent. Not later than this we place the epistle (63) to bp. Caecilius, reproving the omission of wine in the chalice, and distinctly indicating the symbolical importance of a mixed cup; the necessity of a congregation to constitute a sacrament; the irregularity of evening communion. To Sept.253, and its council of 66 bishops, belongs the condemnation of the postponing for even a few days, on ritual grounds, the administration of the other sacrament to infants. To it belongs the affair of Therapius, as above.

Changed Relations with Rome, and Cyprian's Error of Rebaptism. -- In a.d.254 Easter was on April 23; Stephanus was made bp. of Rome May 12; the Carthaginian council met towards autumn (September ?). It had seemed to Cyprian a token of divine displeasure with the Novatianists that they did not suffer with the church; and their prosperity might have seemed to form Stephen's policy in so anti-puritan a mould, except for his overindulgence to Marcion, the Novatianist bp. of Arles (Ep.68); but his was rather a policy of general resistance to the spiritual power compacted by Cyprian and Cornelius; a policy of the widest comprehension on the one basis of submissiveness to his see. The cases of Basilides and Martial have been mentioned. Cyprian's tone to him is one of both compassion and dictation (Ep.68), and from his letter to Florentius Pupienus (66) it is plain that others besides Stephen felt, rightly or wrongly, more than aversion to the immense influence of Cyprian. And, although the whole church has decided that Stephen was right in the great controversy which arose, it was long before his character recovered the shock of his impetuous collision with Cyprian, and grew capable of his fictitious crown of martyrdom. The next group of documents belongs to a.d.255 and 256, and is occupied with the controversy on rebaptism (Epp.69-75, Sentt. Epp. lxxxvii.). For though Cyprian objects to that term (Ep.73, i.), catholic doctrine insists on the assertion it involves. Notwithstanding the council of Agrippinus, and the reception of thousands of heretics by rebaptism in the African church (Ep.73, iii.), numbers had been readmitted without it (Ep.73, xxiii.; Aug. says the practice had fallen off). On the other hand, though Stephen appeals to the constant tradition of his church against rebaptizing, this is simply to ignore the action of Callistus (Hippolytus, p.291, a passage which is against the idea of that author's Novatianism, but which Hefele monstrously wants to apply to Agrippinus [Hist. des Conciles, vol. i. p.87, Paris]). An allusion to Stephen (Ep.69, x.) seems to imply that Stephen stirred the question first. Rettberg considers, after Maran, that his Oriental dispute had already occurred p.170). So Hefele. But this is not necessary. Cyprian (de Un. xi.) early committed himself to language as strong as he ever used again. The original inquiry is whether the non-heretical Novatianists, baptized as such, can be received to catholic communion. It extended itself (73, iv.), until the cases of Marcionites and even Ophites were debated; Stephen would include, and Cyprian exclude, all. At first the difficulty was only |Is not the exclusive African practice itself a Novatianist mark -- being otherwise used only in that sect?| Our briefest method will be first to enumerate the documents, and then to classify their often repeated arguments.

(1) Magnus, a layman, makes the first application, and is replied to by Cyprian with affectionate respect (Ep.69). (2) The bishops of Numidia, who, though without formal vote, had adopted the practice, apply next; the reply is from 33 bishops of Africa, with the presbyters of Carthage (Ep.71). This is Cyprian's 5th Council and 1st on Baptism. Ep.70 is their conciliar declaration of the necessity of (re)baptism. (3) A Mauritanian bishop, Quintus, is answered in Ep.71, enclosing Ep.70, now widely circulated (71, iv.), breathing an injured tone as towards Stephen, and indicating that the council had not been unanimous (Ep.71, i., plurimi . . . nescic qua praesumptione quidam). (4) The de Bono Patientiae was published about this time, to be, without one word upon the subject matter of the controversy, a calming voice in the rising storm. The de Zelo et Livore is generally (and probably) thought to be a very little later in date, and similar in purpose. It is equally reticent on passing events, unless (in vi.5) there may be an allusion to Novatian. There are a few close verbal resemblances between the two treatises, especially in de Pat. xix. (11) and de Zelo, iv. and v. (5) Next year, a.d.256, the 6th Council under Cyprian and 2nd on Baptism, composed of 71 bishops, Numidian and African, unanimously reaffirm the opinion in an unconciliatory synodical epistle to Stephen, conscious of the offence they will give, and enclosing Epp.70 and 71. This epistle is mentioned by Jerome, adv. Lucif. But Augustine (Resp. ad Epp.15) seems not to have seen it, which is strange. (6) Jubaian, a bp. of Mauritania, forwards to Cyprian a copy of a paper there circulating, with some authority, which recognizes even Marcion's baptism (Ep.73, iv.). It may have been issued by one of those native bishops who dissented (Sentt. Epp.59, 38, and cf. Aug. Resp. ad Epp.52, con. Donat. vii.16, 6). Rettberg agrees with |Constant. Ep. Pontif. p.226,| that it was Stephen's letter to the East. Cyprian sent Jubaian a reply so elaborate that, at the final council, he read it aloud as his own best exposition of his views, with Jubaian's convinced answer. Cyprian's letter was accompanied with all the documents sent to Stephen, and a copy of his Patience. (7) A deputation of bishops waited on Stephen but were not received (Ep.75, xxv.); the letter which they bore was answered (74, i.) in terms appreciative of the greatness of the question (75, xvii.) but not arguing it, charitable to the separatists, affirming the tradition (75, v.; 73, xiii.), resting on the authority of the see (75, xvii.), and styling Cyprian |a pseudo-Christ, a pseudo-apostle and treacherous worker.| It would be unfair not to recognize anxiety under the word |treacherous,| while Fabian of Antioch, by dallying with Novatianism, was complicating Stephen's position; and Cyprian's own language as to |favourers of Antichrist| (69, x.) had exposed him to retaliation. Stephen had circulated in the East a paper which awakened |lites et dissensiones per ecclesias totius mundi| (75, xxiv.), declaring he would hold no communion with bishops who used second baptism (Ep.75, xxiv.; 74, viii.; Dionys. Al. ap. Eus. vii.5). The natural reply of the metropolitan of Cappadocia was |Thou hast excommunicated thyself.| The general history of rebaptism must be read elsewhere, but it was held in Cappadocia, Pamphylia, and other regions of Asia Minor as a practice received from |Christ and from the apostle| (75, xix.), and it had been confirmed by the councils of Synnada and Iconium. Dionysius the Great recommended forbearance to Stephen, and to the eminent Roman presbyters Dionysius and Philemon. (8) Pompey, bp. of Sabrata on the Syrtis, was the next inquirer, asking for Stephen's reply (Ep.74). Cyprian sends it with the antidote, a fine letter, though not moderate, closing with an amendment on the canon of Stephen. Pompey was convinced if he had wavered, and his proxy at the council was presented by his neighbour the bp. of Oea. (9) The 7th council of Carthage, or 3rd on baptism, held Sept.1, a.d.256. Eighty-seven bishops of all the three provinces, with presbyters and deacons, met in the presence of a vast laity. The council opened with the reading of the Jubaian correspondence, and the letter to Stephen (Sent.8), and with a brief speech from Cyprian, large and pacific (Aug. R. Epp.). Each bishop then by seniority delivered his opinion, of which we have a verbal report: from some a good argument, from some a text, an antithesis, an analogy, or a fancy: here a rhetorical sentence, there a solecism or an unfinished clause; a simple restatement, a personality, a fanaticism; two of the juniors vote with the majority on the ground of inexperience. But on the whole we must admire the temper and the ability of so large a number of speakers. The council had a great moral effect. It kept Roman influence at bay for a long time. Jerome is mistaken in asserting, in his youthful contra Luciferianos, that these Fathers recanted. The custom was not specifically repealed till the synod of Arles, nor for Asia Minor till the first of Constantinople. But, from peculiar circumstances, it was specially accepted in the East, and is the basis now of the rebaptism by the Jacobites, not only of heretics and Nestorians, but of orthodox Christians. Before the winter of 256 Cyprian's messengers to Firmilian returned with (10) his reply, the most enthusiastic letter of the series. We have it in Cyprian's translation from the Greek. It has points of great interest; compares the bp. of Rome to Judas; shews the antiquity of rebaptism in Asia; touches on their annual synods; the fixed and extempore portions of the liturgy; the quasi-supremacy of Jerusalem; the unity under wide divisions. For arguments to the point it relies on Cyprian's letters.

We will now briefly classify Cyprian's arguments and the answers to them, avoiding the making him responsible for his partisans, whose judgment in council (vii.) differs much from his. Firmilian, on the other hand, summarizes sensibly. Cyprian then urges for rebaptism (A), Objective grounds. (a) The unity of the church, viz. that in the critical point of |church and non-church,| schism does not differ from heresy (69, iii.): the representation of sacred acts outside not equivalent to sacred acts within: |one Lord, one faith,| there may be, but not |one baptism,| for this implies |one church,| which the schismatic renounces. (b) Unity of Belief. In its African form the creed ran, |Dost thou believe the remission of sins and life everlasting through holy church?| and was accordingly null at the moment of baptism away from the church. (c) Baptism is a function of holy orders on account of its remissory virtue in respect of sin (not Tertullian's doctrine [de Bap. xvii.]), and holy orders have no being outside the church (73, vii.), so that the whole question of episcopal authority as the bond of unity and divine organization is involved (Ep.72, i.), and if external baptism is true, the church has many centres; not one foundation rock, but several (75, xvii.) The separatist teacher surrenders (70, ii.) the animating, unifying Spirit, and cannot through his personal earnestness convey that Spirit to followers by baptizing them (Ep.69). (d) The imposition of hands on the readmitted separatist expresses that he has not, but needs to receive, the Holy Ghost; Stephen's party use this rite, and quote the apostles at Samaria as an example. But without that Spirit how could the separatist consecrate even the water or the unction of confirmation? (Ep.70, i.; cf. Sentt. Epp.18; on the significance of this |royal| oil, see Bunsen; and on the Novatianist disuse of it, Routh, vol. iii. pp.69, 70). Above all, how give the New Birth which, as the essence of the sacrament, is essentially the Spirit's act (Ep.74, v. vi. etc.)? (e) Baptism in the absence of the Spirit is a Judaic, a carnal rite: a defilement; more than a deceiving semblance, a material pollution (Ep.75, xiii.; 72, i.; 73, xxi.; 69, xvi.; cf. Sedatus, Sentt. Epp.18; Victor Gordub. Sent., whom Augustine criticizes as going to lengths beyond Cyprian; still the frightful expression of de Unit. xi. involves all this). The pretender can |neither justify nor sanctify| (69, x.), who but the holy can hallow (69, ii.)? who but the living give life (71, i.)? (f) Christ not present to make up for the unworthiness of the minister. For if so His Spirit could not be absent (75, xii.), and that He is absent is admitted by the necessity for imposition of hands (id. xiii.).

(B) Subjective Grounds. (a) Faith of recipient insufficient (Epp.73, 75, ix.): to be effective must be true; but is deficient in a cardinal point, viz. the remission of sins by the church; even if not false and, as often, blasphemous (73, iv. v; 74). (b) Not secured by the formula. In the Roman church there was still such absence of rigidity that it was argued that without the Trinal form baptism into Christ's name sufficed (Ep.74, v.). Cyprian however points to the clear words of institution, and appeals to common reason to decide whether one is truly baptized into the Son who denies His Humanity (Ep.73, v.), or treats the God of the O. T. as evil (74, iii.): even if the genuine formula be used, still the rite is no question of words; the absent Christ and Spirit are not bound by them as a spell. (c) Incapable of definition. It is not the church's part to graduate departures from the faith. Even death in behalf of a heresy can not restore to the church. If what is universally accepted as ipso facto baptism (in blood) is unavailing, how can ordinary extraneous baptism be more (Ep.73, xxi.; de Unit. xiv. (12) xix.; or Dom. xxiv.)?

(C) The historical argument is handled by Cyprian in the most masterly way. (a) Usage is not worth considering as more than an apology for ignorance; cannot be matched against reason (71, iii.73); (b) is not universal on side of Stephen (Ep.71); (c) cannot be inferred from the non-baptism of restored perverts: their case differs from that of heathens, who had (to begin with) been made heretics, not Christians. (d) The practice of heretical bodies, which had always recognized any previous baptism, was no example to the church (74, iv.); nor could the Novatianist practice of rebaptism be a warning against it (73, ii.); it was either accidental coincidence or imitation (simiarum more), and, if the latter, it was evidence. (e) Casuistic difficulties upon the necessity of |regeneration within the church| as to the position of unbaptized martyrs (73, xxii.), heretics hitherto readmitted and deceased (xxiv.), cases of rebaptism where baptism had been valid, baptism by a demoniac, are met by Cyprian with a breadth of which St. Augustine (contra Crescon. ii.41) says, in the midst of his refutation, |such simplicity is enough for me.|

(D) Biblical Arguments. -- The familiar ones need no more than enumeration: the one loaf; one cup; the ark; the schismatic (not heretical) gainsaying of Korah; the apostles' baptism of men who had already received the Spirit, a fortiori needed for those who confessedly had not. We may admire the ingenuity with which he treats such passages as Acts ii.38, in Ep.73, xvii., or Phil. i.18, in Ep.74, 75, 73, xiv.; but about many Cyprian might fairly be addressed in the words which Optatus (b. iv. p.96) uses to Parmenian: |You batter the law to such purpose that wherever you find the word Water there you conjure out of it some sense to our disadvantage.| He probably originated the application of Ecclus. xxxiv.25, |Qui baptizatur a mortuo quid proficit lavatio ejus,| which the Donatists constantly quote against Augustine, and which Augustine answers only by referring mortuus to a heathen priest or vicious Christian instead of a heretic. He quotes several times the LXX addition to Prov. ix.19, |Drink not of the strange font,| and Jer. xv.18, ii.13, |deceiving waters,| |broken cisterns.| In some of these applications there is poetical force, as of his favourite |garden enclosed and fountain sealed,| and of the doctrines of New Birth and Sonship (Ep.74, v. vi.); in Heresy who was never the Spotless Spouse we can never find a mother (Ep.75). To this Stephen finely answers that she was an unnatural mother indeed (75, xiv.) who exposed her children so soon as they were born, but that the church's part was to seek them and bring them home and rear them for Christ. Dispersed as this system of Cyprian's lies, through his correspondence and tracts, it will be seen that in his mind it was not fragmentary, but logical and coherent. Over the theory promulgated by one of his powers and character, backed by an army of bishops, moving as one man under him, yet independent enough each to find their own telling arguments (Conc. III.), Stephen's triumph without a council, against remonstrances from the East, and hindered by his own pretentiousness and uncharitableness, was great. It was deserved also, for Rome represented freedom, comprehensiveness, and safe latitude. She decided upon one grand principle, the same on which Jerome afterwards decided the analogous question of reordination (adv. Lucif.). Cyprian's principle was the same which blinded Tertullian (de Bapt. xv.); which was extended by the Donatists to make moral defects in the minister debar grace; which led Knox and Calvin to deny baptism to the infant children of |papists,| and the Genevan divines to allow it, on the hope that |the grace which had adopted| the
great-grandfathers might not yet be so |wholly extinct that the infants should have lost their right to the common seal| (Hooker, iii.1, 12). Augustine (Resp. ad Episcopos) developed the categorical answer to each separate argument of Cyprian and his bishops, but the true solution was applied at once by Stephen. The grace of baptism is of Christ, not of the human baptizer. He who baptizes does not |give being or add force| to the sacrament. Cyprian's language about |justifying and sanctifying| may well have shocked the church of Rome, and makes Stephen's anger partly intelligible. The child or heathen who learns Christ through the teaching of the heretic cannot be charged with |defect or disorder,| in the reception of a sacrament, to which he comes with purest faith, and which it is the will of God to impart to all. Though excluded |from fellowship in holy duties with the visible church,| he is still a member of such visible church. (Ep.73, xvi. We must take the fragmentary quotation, 75, i., |Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit| with the other, |In nomine Christi baptizatus,| and cf. Routh, R. S. vol. iii. p.183.) The only real blot which Cyprian struck was the vulgar explanation of the laying on of hands at readmission. Upon that hypothesis his own view was justifiable. But the act was not really understood by the intelligent to be the imparting of the Spirit for the first time to those who had it not; it was the renewing by the Spirit, and introducing to communion of a repentant and now enlightened child of God. |A son of God| in spite of any theological error, Stephen declares him in the fullest sense to be (Ep.74, vi.; 75, xvii.). The expression seems to have been much cavilled at in Carthage, and is mentioned even in Ep.72, after the second council. And now it ought to be noticed that (as the Novatianists saw) Cyprian had a real point of contact with Novatianism. In the instance of Lapse he discovered its fallacy. In the instance of Heresy he fell into it. The visible church, according to him, included the worst moral sinner in expectation of his penitence; it excluded the most virtuous and orthodox baptized Christian who had not been baptized by a catholic minister. Nevertheless, although the Roman church then took a wider view than Cyprian as to the sonship of man to God, Cyprian was much greater (and this is the true church-moral of this part of his history) upon the possibility and duty of union in diversity. Augustine well draws out the independence of thought and action which Cyprian wished to be maintained without exclusiveness, and tells us (Aug. v. de Bapt.17) how he was never weary of reading the conclusion of the Ep. to Quintus. Every bishop was free to judge for himself, none to be persecuted for his views, and therefore every one to be tender of the bonds of peace: |Salvo jure communionis diversa sentire.| The unanimity of such early councils and their erroneousness are a remarkable monition. Not packed, not pressed; the question broad; no attack on an individual; only a principle sought; the assembly representative; each bishop the elect of his flock; and all |men of the world,| often christianized, generally ordained late in life; converted against their interests by conviction formed in an age of freest discussion; their Chief one in Whom were rarely blended intellectual and political ability, with holiness, sweetness, and self-discipline. The conclusion reached by such an assembly uncharitable, unscriptural, uncatholic, and unanimous. The consolation as strange as the disappointment. The mischief silently and perfectly healed by the simple working of the Christian society. Life corrected the error of thought. Augustine beautifully writes: |It is of no light moment that though the question was agitated among bishops of an age anterior to the faction of Donatus, and although opinions differed without the unity of the colleagues being marred, still this our present use has been settled to be observed throughout the whole Catholic church diffused throughout the world| (contra Crescon. i. xxxii.38). The disappearance of the Cyprianic decisions has its hope for us when we look on bonds seemingly inextricable, and steps as yet irretrievable. It may be noted, as affording some clue to the one-sided decisions, that the laity were silent, though Cyprian seemed pledged to some consultation with them. (See esp. Ep.31 and 19, ii.) It must have been among them that there were in existence and at work those very principles which so soon not only rose to the surface, but overpowered the voices of her bishops for the general good. It was a parliament of officials, provincial governors. That it did not represent church opinion (that, namely, which we now accept as church doctrine), may be inferred -- (1) from the absolute unanimity of the 87 utterances; (2) from the strange avowal of two, that, being incompetent to give an opinion, they vote with the majority; (3) from the very important and powerful contemporary work of the |Auctor de Rebaptismate|; (4) from the silent reversal of the decision.

The Last Persecution. -- Of the 31 Numidian bishops who sat in the great council, the next glimpse of church offices shews 9 as convicts in the mines metallum Siguense (? Siga, where there were copper-mines in Mauritania, or Siguita in Numidia itself) and in two other places. A subdeacon and four acolytes were commissioned by the metropolitan (already himself an exile) and his friend Quirinus to visit them, and supply them with necessaries (Epp.77-79). Cyprian had been apprehended, as perhaps the first African prisoner (Epp.77-78), in Aug. a.d.257. Valerian's first edict (Acta Proconsulis, and Acta Praef. Augustalis) had then been issued on the suggestion of Macrianus, a principal patron of the Egyptian |Magi,| after a long administration of fairness to the Christians. The |eighth| persecution lasted the Apocalyptic 42 months until his death in 260. (Dion. Al. ap. Pearson, Ann. Cyp. p.59; Eus. vii.10, v. ii.70.) On Aug.2, 257, before the exile of Cyprian, Stephen died. His reputation as a martyr, dating from the 6th cent., is due to a transference to him of incidents from the death of Xystus, of which the singular history is traced by de Rossi, Roma Sott. Cr. vol. ii. p.85, etc. He was succeeded on Aug.25 by Xystus, whom, not without a stroke at the dead lion, Pontius calls |a good pacific high-priest.| No |state enemy| could be treated with more consideration than Cyprian received. Aspasius Paternus, the proconsul, heard him in secretario, and without confiscation or personal restraint simply required his retirement to Curubis, a free town, near the sea (in deserto loco), lonely, but pleasant, and well supplied (Pontius; cf. Gibbon, vol. ii.248, Smith's ed.). It was at the same time that the withdrawal of Dionysius was ordered and performed (Eus. vii.11). On Sept.14 a dream, related at once to his friends, was found after his martyrdom to have foretold it for that day year. Attended by his deacon, and allowed the presence of friends, and |offering,| no doubt, as in his former banishment, |his daily sacrifice,| he actively organized relief for more helpless sufferers and subsidized them largely himself. After 12 months spent thus, the new proconsul Galerius Maximus, already a dying man, recalled him to his home in Carthage (horti). When a rumour arrived that Marcianus, |entrusted with the whole republic| by Valerian, now on his last march to Persia, was determined to carry things to an extremity with Christians, Cyprian was probably the first African who procured a copy of the tremendous rescript, and of the letter which was about to be issued to the Praesides (Ep.80). The proconsul in Cyprian's trial mentions both the extension of capital penalties to presbyters, and the new prohibition of the use of cemeteries for worship. His messenger returned with the full intelligence of sweeping measures before their publication, and with news that Xystus had been beheaded (Pont. Vit. Cyp. xii.; Leon. Sacr. Muratori, vol. i. p.391) on Sunday, Aug.5, in the cemetery of Praetextatus when actually |teaching| in his episcopal chair, and with him four of the great Roman deacons. It may be taken as historical fact that on Wed. the 29th of the previous June, Xystus had translated the supposed remains of St. Peter to the cemetery known as Cata Cumbas, on the Appian Way, and those of St. Paul to the Ostian Way. It is possible that this increasing reverence to two malefactors executed two centuries before both shewed the magistrates that the spirit of the sect was becoming more dangerous and determined them to withdraw from Christians the protection which the burial laws hitherto accorded to rites celebrated in connexion with places of sepulture; and further, that this occasioned a withdrawal from the better-known cemetery of Callistus to the more obscure one of Praetextatus (see de Rossi, Rom. Sott. vol. ii. p.41; and Lips. ll.cc.), and the death of Xystus in that place. The news of it had scarcely reached Carthage when Galerius, now in residence at Utica, summoned Cyprian thither in honourable form (Ep.81). Having previously refused offers of a retreat, urged on him even by heathens, he now said he was resolved not to die, or utter the dying prophecy with which he apparently expected to be inspired, away from his people. Accordingly, informed of the dispatch before it came, he went into hiding in Carthage, there to await the proconsul's return. On his return, he reappeared and reoccupied his own house. The details of the trial are too numerous to repeat and too remarkable to abridge. They are found not only in the narrative of Pontius, but also in a |Passion of Cyprian,| which we have in different forms, and which from its simplicity, provinciality, and minute topography, must be contemporary. Cyprian was removed from his home on Aug.13; the magistrate's broken health prolonged the examination; but the prisoner's rank shielded him from suffering or indignity. Though the language of the judge was stern, the Christians confessed the reluctance with which he gave sentence. In them sense of triumph in the possession of such a martyr is dwelt on with almost as much force as the sense of loss. With a strange mingled feeling, characteristic of the vividness with which in intense moments circumstances are apprehended which would at other times be trivial, they marked how little incidents combined to do him honour. The seat he rested on for the last time happened to be covered with a white cloth, the episcopal emblem. The trees were climbed, as he passed, by many a Zacchaeus. The eve and vigil of his martyrdom were kept by all his flock, watching through the night in the streets before his house, when as yet the only vigil of the Christian year was that which preceded the day of Christ's own Passion. The idea of this parallel took such hold that Augustine carries it to a painful pitch (Serm.309). The two officers between whom Cyprian rode are compared to the two malefactors between whom our Lord went to His Passion. Pontius compares the words of the sentence to the prophecy of Caiaphas. Cyprian received no dying prophecy, nor uttered any, though his time was ample. His words were very few, and no exhortation could have been so eloquent as the |Thanks be to God | with which he answered the judgment: |our pleasure is that Thascius Cyprianus be executed by the sword.|

Personal, Theological, and Political Effectiveness. -- To sum up the effect of Cyprian's 13 years' episcopate in briefest terms. Over and above, (1) the social impressiveness for the time of a convert with such culture and such mental habits, and of that perfect epieikeia and praotes to which Augustine constantly reverts with delight, comes (2) his Philosophy. It is usual to expand the fact that he was no philosopher. Nevertheless his writings on Resentment, Patience, Probation, Envy,
Self-devotion, are most able essays towards establishing a new Christian basis of Morals, and have a permanent place in the series. (3) Evidences. As against both contemporary Judaism and contemporary paganism his collections have a distinct worth. (4) Interpretation. He has a free ideal scheme before him (Ep.64), but in detail falls from it, and makes mere riddles of texts. (5) Organization. This is the real epigraph of his career. The magnitude of the effect he produced is incomparably greater than that of any other person, not excepting Hildebrand. (a) The Church Council, a local and doubtful institution before, became through his management a necessary institution and the imperial power of the church, and, with its system of representation by a life-aristocracy popularly elected, and its free discussionary scheme, exercised an important function in the regeneration of liberty. (b) Episcopacy grew silently into an institution of the Roman empire, strong with the lasting virtues of Roman institutions, and only biding its time for recognition. (6) The Individual Independence, as he sketches it, of elected bishops preserved, while it remained, a grand democratic strength to what after a time sank to an oligarchic, and under the papacy to an administrative, magistracy. This must again be the key of church governments in states which have not that intimate union with the church which the ideal of a Christian nation requires. We here give references on the subject of this Independence, which to the policy of Cyprian's time was so essential (Ep.55, xvii.; actum suum, etc., 72, iv.; quando habet, etc., 73, xxxvi.; nemini praescribentes, etc., 57, vi.; si de collegis, etc., 69, xvii.; statuat. Sentt. Epp. Praef.6). There exists what may be called |resistance to Roman claims|; but Cyprian is totally unconscious of any claims made by the see, and resists Stephen purely as an arrogant individual.

Cultus. -- There were two famous basilicas erected, one on the place of his martyrdom (in agro sexti), where was the Mensa Cypriani, from which Augustine often preached; the other on the shore (Aug. Conf. v.; ad Mappalia, Aug. vol. vii. App. p.37; ad Piscinas, Victor Vitens. i. v. iv.). In this Monica spent the night of her son's departure for Italy, praying and weeping. In Sulpicius Severus (Dial. i.3) his friend comes hither to pray on his way from Narbonne to Egypt. The adoration reached such a height that Gibbon is charmed to call him |almost a local deity.| His feast and the gales which blew then were called Cypriani (Procop. Vand. i.20, 21; Greg. Naz. Or.18, ap. Ducange, s.v.). There are still on the |brink of the shore| the massive ruins of a church which must be St. Cyprian's. Davis (Carthage and her Remains, p.389) describes them fully, and it is not hard to see how he has misled himself into not recognizing what they are. The relics of Cyprian were given (strange conjunction) by Haroun al Raschid to Charlemagne. The sequel may be seen in Ruinart, Acta Mm. Cypr. § 17, and in the epistle of J. de la Haye, prefixed to Pamelius's Cyprian, fol. b.3.

Texts. -- Of the MSS. and their connexions, and also of the edd., a good account is given by Hartel in his preface; cf. D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.). Besides the ed. in Patr. Lat. may be mentioned one by D. J. H. Goldhorn (Leipz.1838), a useful text-book, well emended. But the best ed. now is by J. Hartel (3 vols.8vo, 1868-1871), in the Vienna Corpus Scriptt. Eccll. Latt., which contains all the works attributed to Cyprian, with the ad Novatianum, Auctor de Rebaptismate, Pontii Vita, etc., and Indices. It is a new recension, for which above 40 MSS. have been studied, classified, valued, and reduced to a most clear apparatus criticus, with keen attention to orthography, and almost always a judicious discrimination of the preferable readings; a valuable preface on the principles and history of the text formation.

[E.W.B.]

[The authoritative work on St. Cyprian is by the writer of this art. English trans. of several of Cyprian's works and his Epp. are given in the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). A simple monograph on his Life and Times is pub. in the cheap A. and M. Theol. Lib. (Griffith); and an Eng. trans. of his treatise On the Lord's Prayer by T. H. Bindley is pub. by S.P.C.K.; the text, with trans., has been ed. by Rev. H. Gee (Bell).]

Cyra
Cyra. [[138]Marana.]

Cyriac, patriarch of Constantinople
Cyriacus (l9), 30th patriarch of Constantinople, a.d.595. He was previously presbyter and steward, oikonomos, of the great church at Constantinople (Chronicon Paschale, p.378). Gregory the Great received the legates bearing the synodal letters which announced his consecration, partly from a desire not to disturb the peace of the church, and partly from the personal respect which he entertained for Cyriac; but in his reply he warned him against the sin of causing divisions in the church, clearly alluding to the use of the term oecumenical bishop (Gregorii Ep. lib. vii.4, Patr. Lat. lxxvii.853). The personal feelings of Gregory towards Cyriac appear most friendly.

Cyriac did not attend to the entreaties of Gregory that he would abstain from using the title, for Gregory wrote afterwards both to him and to the emperor Maurice, declaring that he could not allow his legates to remain in communion with Cyriac as long as he retained it. In the latter of these letters he compares the assumption of the title to the sin of Antichrist, since both exhibit a spirit of lawless pride. |Quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se ceteris praeponit| (Greg. Ep.28, 30). In a letter to Anastasius of Antioch, who had written to him to remonstrate against disturbing the peace of the church, Gregory defends his conduct on the ground of the injury which Cyriac had done to all other patriarchs by the assumption of the title, and reminds Anastasius that not only heretics but heresiarchs had before this been patriarchs of Constantinople. He also deprecates the use of the term on more general grounds (Ep.24). In spite of all this Cyriac was firm in his retention of the title, and appears to have summoned, or to have meditated summoning, a council to authorize its use. For in a.d.599 Gregory wrote to Eusebius of Thessalonica and some other bishops, stating that he had heard they were about to be summoned to a council at Constantinople, and most urgently entreating them to yield neither to force nor to persuasion, but to be steadfast in their refusal to recognize the offensive title (ib. lib. ix.68 in Patr. Lat.). Cyriac appears to have shared in that unpopularity of the emperor Maurice which caused his deposition and death (Theophan. Chron. p.242, A.M.6094; Niceph. Callis. H. E. xviii.40; Theophylact. Hist. viii.9). He still, however, had influence enough to exact from Phocas at his coronation a confession of the orthodox faith and a pledge not to disturb the church (Theoph. Chron. p.243, A.M.6094). He also nobly resisted the attempt of Phocas to drag the empress Constantia and her daughters from their sanctuary in a church of Constantinople (ib. p.246, A.M.6098). Perhaps some resentment at this opposition to his will may have induced Phocas to accede more readily to the claims of Boniface III. that Rome should be considered to be the head of all the church, in exclusion of the claims of Constantinople to the oecumenical bishopric (Vita Bonifacii III. apud Labbe, Acta Concil. t. v.1615). Cyriac died in 606, and was interred in the church of the Holy Apostles (Chronicon Paschale, p.381). He appears to have been a man of remarkable piety and earnestness, able to win the esteem of all parties. He built a church dedicated to the Theotokos in a street of Constantinople called Diaconissa (Theoph. Chron.233, A.M.6090; Niceph. Callis. H. E. xviii.42).

[P.O.]

Cyrillus, bishop of Jerusalem
Cyrillus (2), Kurillos, bp. of Jerusalem, was probably born in Jerusalem or its immediate neighbourhood, c.315. His writings prove that his education was liberal, and embraced a large variety of subjects. Touttée has laboriously collected evidences (c. ii.) of his acquaintance with physics, dialectics, physiology, mythology, etc. That he was a diligent student of Holy Scripture is certain, from the intimate knowledge, at least of the text, shewn in his Catecheses. But he was only acquainted with the LXX. His knowledge of Hebrew was only second-hand, and often incorrect. He was ordained deacon probably by Macarius bp. of Jerusalem, c.335 (Soz. H. E. iv.20, where the text is doubtful), and priest by his successor Maximus, c.345. Maximus, notwithstanding Cyril's youth, entrusted him with the responsible duty of instructing catechumens, and preparing them for baptism. He also allowed him the exceptional privilege, sometimes granted by bishops to presbyters of eminent ability (e.g. to Chrysostom by Flavian of Antioch, and to Augustine by Valerius of Hippo), of preaching to the people in full church on the Lord's Day. In his office of catechist, c.347, Cyril delivered the catechetical lectures by which his name is chiefly known (Hieron. de Vir. Illust. § 12). These lectures were preached without book on the evenings of the weeks of Lent, in the basilica of the Holy Cross, or Martyrium, erected on Calvary by St. Helena. His references to the locality are numerous and interesting (e.g. iv.10-14, x.19, xiii.4, 22, 39, xviii.33). The five mystagogical lectures were addressed during Easter-week at noon to those baptized on Easter-eve in the Anastasis, or church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The episcopate of Maximus terminated at the close of 350 or the beginning of 351, and Cyril was chosen to fill the episcopal chair of Jerusalem. A cloud of doubt and difficulty hangs over his elevation to the episcopate. Jerome can hardly have been mistaken as to the main fact, though theological prejudice and personal dislike may have warped his judgment and caused him to represent the case in the least favourable light. On some leading questions Cyril and Jerome were decidedly opposed. In the great controversy of the day Cyril belonged to the Asiatic party, Jerome to that of Rome. In the Meletian schism at Antioch also they took opposite sides: Cyril supporting Meletius, Jerome being a warm adherent of Paulinus. Jerome asserts (Chronicon ad ann.349) that on the death of Maximus the Arians invaded the church of Jerusalem and promised to appoint Cyril to the vacant throne if he would repudiate his ordination by Maximus; that Cyril consented to the humiliating terms, served some time in the church as a deacon, and was then rewarded with the episcopate by Acacius, the semi-Arian bp. of Caesarea, and according to the seventh Nicene canon metropolitan of Palestine; that Cyril then dishonourably persecuted Heraclius, whom Maximus, on his deathbed, had nominated his successor, and degraded him to the presbyterate. This account is supported by Rufinus (H. E. i.23, |Sacerdotio, confusa jam ordinatione, suscepto|). Socrates and Sozomen, though they say nothing of Cyril's repudiation of his orders, are almost equally unfavourable to his orthodoxy, identifying him with the semi-Arian party of Acacius and Patrophilus. They also introduce a new element of confusion by the statement that the see of Jerusalem was vacant not by death, but by Maximus's deposition and expulsion by the semi-Arians (Socr. ii.38; Soz. iv.20; Theophan. Chronograph. p.34). This may safely be rejected. In refutation of Jerome's account, Cyril's advocates triumphantly point to the synodical letter to pope Damasus of the bishops assembled at Constantinople, the year after the second oecumenical synod, a.d.382, which speaks of Cyril in terms of high eulogy, as a champion of the orthodox faith against Arian heresy, and affirms his canonical election to the see of Jerusalem (Theod. H. E. v.9). But this does not touch the point at issue. Acacius was the metropolitan of Cyril's province. He and his fellow-bishops were, notwithstanding their heretical bias, the legitimate authorities for conferring the episcopate. Cyril's election and consecration was therefore strictly canonical. Besides, the silence of the members of the synod as to facts occurring 30 years before does not disprove them. Whatever might have been Cyril's earlier heretical failings, he was on the orthodox side then (cf. Socr. v.8, and Soz. vii.7). His adhesion was valuable, and it would have been as impolitic as it was needless to revive an almost forgotten scandal. Yet Cyril's own writings quite forbid us to follow Jerome's authority in classing him with the Arians, or charging him with heretical tenets. Circumstances might render his orthodoxy equivocal. His early patron, Maximus, was somewhat of a waverer. His friends and associates were semi-Arians, and he was chosen to the episcopate by them, with the hope of his supporting their cause. But no error of doctrine is to be discovered in his writings, though he avoids the test word |homoousion| in his catecheses. He is well characterized by the Duc de Broglie (l'Eglise et l'Empire, iii.402) as |formant l'extrémité de l'aile droite du Semiarianisme touchant à l'orthodoxie, ou de l'aile gauche de l'orthodoxie touchant au Semiarianisme,| and may be regarded, certainly in the later part of his life, as one of those of whom Athanasius speaks (de Synod.41) as |brothers who mean what we mean, and only differ about the word.| The first year of Cyril's episcopate was rendered memorable by the appearance, May 7, 351, of a remarkable parhelion, or other atmospheric phenomenon, over Jerusalem, which was regarded as a miraculous manifestation of the symbol of redemption intended to establish the faith and confute gainsayers, and produced great excitement in the city. The churches were thronged with worshippers, and many Jews and Gentiles were converted to the faith. So important did the phenomenon appear to Cyril that he wrote to the emperor Constantius describing it. This letter has been preserved. Its authenticity has been called in question by Rivet, but the internal evidence from the similarity of style is strong, and it is accepted by Blondel. The occurrence of the word |homoousion| at the close of the letter is, however, suspicious, and leads us to question whether the prayer for the emperor in which it stands is not a later addition (Soz. iv.5; Philostorg. iii.26; Chron. Alex. p.678; Theophan. p.35 A). If Acacius had reckoned on Cyril as a faithful adherent and ready instrument in carrying out his plans, the fallacy of his expectations was very soon shewn. Scarcely had Cyril established himself in his see when a distressing controversy, which became the source of much evil to the church, arose as to the claim to priority of their respective sees (Theod. ii.25; Soz. iv.25). Cyril grounded his claim on the apostolical rank of his see, Acacius on the decision of the council of Nice (Can. vii.), which placed the bp. of Aelia -- i.e. Jerusalem -- under the bp. of Caesarea as metropolitan. This contest for pre-eminence was speedily embittered by mutual accusations of heterodoxy (Soz. iv.15). For two years Acacius continued vainly summoning Cyril to his tribunal, and at last cut the controversy short by deposing him from his see (Soz. u.s., 357 or 358) at a small packed synod of his own adherents. The ostensible grounds were very trivial: contumacy in refusing to appear, and the charge -- afterwards brought against Ambrose by the Arians -- of having sold some of the church ornaments during a prevailing scarcity to supply the wants of the poor (Socr. ii.40; Soz. iv.25; Theod. ii.26; Epiphan. Haeres. lxxiii. §§ 23-27), and also of having held communion with Eustathius and Elpidius after their deposition by the synod of Melitina, in Lesser Armenia (Soz. u.s.; Basil. Ep.253 ). Cyril was forced to yield. He left his see, not, however, without an appeal to a larger council, the justice of which was allowed by Constantius. This is noted by Socrates (ii.40) as the first instance of an appeal against the decision of an ecclesiastical synod. On leaving Jerusalem Cyril first retired to Antioch and thence to Tarsus, where he was hospitably received by the bp. Silvanus, one of the best of the semi-Arians, who availed himself of Cyril's powers as a preacher. We find him also here in communion and friendship with other leading members of the same party, Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra, and George of Laodicea (Soz. iv.25; Philost. iv.12). The enmity of Acacius pursued his rival. Silvanus was warned against holding communion with one who had been deposed for contumacy and other crimes. But Cyril had gained great popularity at Tarsus by his sermons, the people would not hear of his leaving them, and Silvanus declined to attend to the admonition (Theod. u.s.). Nearly two years after his deposition, Sept.359, Cyril laid his appeal before the council of Seleucia, at which he took his place among the semi-Arians. Acacius vehemently protested against his admission to the council. |If Cyril did not leave the synod, he must.| Some of the bishops, in the cause of peace, begged Cyril to yield, at least temporarily, till his appeal had been heard. Cyril refused, and Acacius quitted the council, but soon returned, and took a leading part in the subsequent stormy debates. The semi-Arians who were opposed to Acacius were in the ascendant. Acacius was himself deposed, and Cyril restored (Theod. ii.26; Socr. ii.40; Soz. iv.22; Philost. iv.12). Acacius and his friends at once started for the capital, where they easily persuaded the weak Constantius to summon a fresh council. Fresh accusations were added to those formerly adduced. The charge of sacrilegiously disposing of the church goods was revived, and the emperor's indignation was excited by hearing that a baptismal robe of gold brocade, presented by his father Constantine to Macarius, which had been sold, had unfortunately found its way into the wardrobe of a theatre, and been recognized on the stage. Acacius's arts prevailed, and Cyril was a second time banished (Socr. ii.42; Soz. iv.25; Theod. ii.27).

On the accession of Julian, 361, Cyril was reinstated, together with all the exiled bishops (Socr. iv.1; Soz. u.s.; Theod. iii.4; Amm. Marcell. xxii.5). At Jerusalem Cyril calmly watched the attempts of Julian to rebuild the Temple, and foretold that it must fail (Socr. iii.20; Rufinus, i.37).

During the reign of the orthodox Jovian Cyril's episcopate was undisturbed, and the accession of Valens and Valentinian found him in quiet possession of his see, 364. In 366 Acacius died, and Cyril immediately claimed the nomination to the see of Caesarea, and appointed Philomenus. Philomenus was deposed by the Eutychian faction, and another Cyril substituted. He, in return, was deposed by Cyril of Jerusalem, who consecrated his sister's son Gelasius in his room, a.d.367 (Epiphan. Haer. lxxiii.37). In 367 Cyril was a third time deposed and exiled, with all the prelates recalled by Julian, by the edict of the Arian Valens (Socr. ii.45; Soz. iv.30; Epiph. Haer. lxvi.20). His banishment lasted till Valens died and Theodosius succeeded, Jan.15, 379, when he reoccupied his see, which he retained quietly for the 8 remaining years of his. life (Hieron. Vir. Ill. c.112; Socr. v.3; Soz. vii.2). On his return he found Jerusalem rent with schisms, infested with almost every form of heresy, and polluted by the most flagrant crimes. To combat these evils he appealed to the council held at Antioch, 379, which dispatched Gregory Nyssen to his aid. But the disease was too deeply seated to admit of an easy or speedy remedy. Gregory departed hopeless of a cure, and in his Warning against Pilgrimages drew a dark picture of the depravation of morals in the Holy City (de Euntibus Hieros. p.656). In 381 Cyril was present at the second oecumenical council held at
Constantinople, when he took rank with the chief metropolitans, the bps. of Alexandria and Antioch. He there declared his full adhesion to the Nicene faith, and his acceptance of the test word |homoousion| (Socr. iv.8; Soz. iv.7).

Cyril died Mar.18, 386 (Socr. v.15; Soz. vii.14; Bolland. Mar.18, p.625 B). He was bp. of Jerusalem for 35 years, 16 of which he passed in exile.

His works consist of 18 |Catechetical lectures| addressed to catechumens (katecheseis photizomenon), and 5 |Mystagogical lectures| to the newly baptized (mustagogikai katecheseis pros tous neophotistous). These were composed in his youth (has en te neoteti sunetaxen, Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c.112), c.347, while still a presbyter. The |Catechetical lectures| possess considerable interest as the earliest example extant of a formal system of theology; from their testimony to the canon of Scripture, the teaching of the church on the chief articles of the creed, and on the sacraments; and from the light they throw on the ritual of the 4th cent. The perfect agreement of his teaching, as Dr. Newman remarks (Lib. of the Fathers, vol. ii. part i. pp. ix.-x.), as regards the Trinity, with the divines of the Athanasian school, is of great weight in determining the true doctrine of the early church on that fundamental question, and relieves Cyril from all suspicion of heterodoxy. But his Catecheses do not rank high as argumentative or expository work, nor has Cyril any claim to a place among the masters of Christian thought, whose writings form the permanent riches of the church.

All previous editions of his works were surpassed by the Benedictine ed. of A. A. Touttée (Paris, 1720, fol., and Venice, 1761, fol.). The introduction contains very elaborate and exhaustive dissertations on his life, writings, and doctrines. These are reprinted in Migne's Patrologia, vol. xxxiii.

The chief modern authorities for Cyril's life and doctrines are Touttée, u.s.; Tillem, Mémoires Ecclés. vol. viii.; Cave, Historia Lit. i.211, 212; Schröckh, Kirchengeschichte, xii.343 seq.; Newman, preface to the Oxf. trans., Lib. of the Fathers, ii.1. Newman's trans. was carefully revised by Dr. E. H. Gifford in the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (1844), and furnished with a very important introduction.

[E.V.]

Cyril, Saint, archbishop of Alexandria
Cyrillus (7), St., archbp. of Alexandria. He was a native of Alexandria, and had learned theology under monastic discipline in |the desert.| During this period he had been reproved by Isidore of Pelusium, who was for years his venerated monitor, for occupying himself, even in |solitude,| with worldly thoughts and interests (Isid. Ep. i.25); and it is evident from his whole career that so strong a will and so vehement a nature could never be thoroughly satisfied with a life of
contemplation. After five years' abode in mount Nitria, his uncle, the then archbp. Theophilus, summoned him to Alexandria, where he was ordained, and expounded and preached with great reputation (Neale, Hist. Alex. i.226). Theophilus died Oct.15, a.d.412. Cyril was put forward for the vacant chair; and after a tumultuous contest was enthroned, three days after his uncle's death. (See his first Paschal homily.) His episcopate, begun in trouble and discord, seemed at first to forebode nothing better than a course of violent and untempered zeal, as if the fierce spirit of Theophilus were governing his conduct. He shut up the chamber of the Novatianists, took away their |sacred treasure,| and deprived their bishop, Theopemptus, of all his property (Socr. vii.7). He then made an attack upon the large body of Jewish residents. They had provoked him by implacable hostility. One Hierax, a schoolmaster, always foremost in applauding Cyril's sermons, was denounced by the Jews as an encourager of sedition when he was in the theatre at the promulgation of a prefectorial edict. Orestes, the prefect, who hated Cyril as a formidable rival potentate, had Hierax publicly tortured in the theatre. Cyril thereupon tried the effect of menaces on the principal Jews of Alexandria. This only increased their bitterness; they began to organize plots against the Christians; and one night a cry rang through the streets that |Alexander's church was on fire.| The Christians rushed to save their sanctuary: the Jews, recognizing each other, as prearranged, by rings made from the bark of palm branches, slew the Christians whom they met. At daybreak Cyril, at the head of an immense crowd, took forcible possession of the synagogues, expelled the Jews from the city and abandoned their property to plunder. Orestes, naturally indignant, complained to the emperor, Theodosius II., then a boy of fourteen. Cyril addressed to the court an account of the Jewish outrages, and, at the suggestion of the people, endeavoured to pacify the prefect. Orestes would not listen. Cyril extended to him, as a form of solemn appeal, the book of the Gospels; it might well have occurred to Orestes that the archbishop had forgotten some of its precepts when he in person led a multitude of Christian zealots to revenge one violence by another. The gifted female philosopher, Hypatia, the boast of Alexandrian paganism, was dragged from her carriage into the great Caesarean church, where her body was torn to pieces. This hideous crime, done in a sacred place and in a sacred season -- it was the Lent of 415 -- brought, as Socrates expresses it (vii.15), |no small reproach on Cyril and the church of the Alexandrians.| Was this foul murder what Gibbon calls it, an |exploit of Cyril's|? Did he take any part in it, or approve it ex post facto? It has been said that |Cyril was suspected, even by the orthodox, of complicity in the murder| (Stanley's Lect. on East. Ch.293). Socrates, as sympathizing with the Novatianists, has been considered to do Cyril less than justice; but he does not suggest such a suspicion against him, or against the whole church of Alexandria. He says, fairly, that this church and its chief pastor were to some extent disgraced by such a deed of members of it. As for Damascius's assertion that Cyril really prompted the murder (Suidas, p.1059), we cannot consider as evidence the statement of a pagan philosopher who lived about 130 years after the event, and was a thorough hater of Christianity. We are justified in regarding it, with Canon Robertson (Hist. Ch. i.401), as |an unsupported calumny|; but, as he adds, |the perpetrators were mostly officers of his church, and had unquestionably derived encouragement from Cyril's earlier proceedings; and his character deservedly suffered in consequence.| The turbulent and furious |parabolani| and others, who shed Hypatia's blood at the foot of the altar, were but |bettering the instruction| which had let them loose upon the synagogues. Cyril's name has paid dearly for the error, and the great doctrinal cause which he upheld so stoutly in after-years has suffered for the faults of his earlier life.

It was but natural that the government should the next year restrain the clergy from political action, especially by restrictions on the number and conduct of the parabolani.

Cyril had inherited his uncle's animosity against John Chrysostom, who, in his opinion, had been canonically deposed; he rejected with bitterness the advice of Atticus of Constantinople to place |John's| name on his church diptychs (Ep. p.204); and it was not until after the memory of that persecuted saint had been rehabilitated at Constantinople as well as at Antioch that the archbp. of Alexandria, urged by Isidore of Pelusium (Isid. i.370), consented in 417 to follow these precedents. (See Tillemont, xiv.281.)

We pass over several uneventful years, during which Cyril doubtless occupied himself in ordinary church affairs and in theological literature, and come to the great controversy with which his name is pre-eminently associated. In the end of 428 he became aware of the excitement caused in Constantinople by the preaching of archbp. Nestorius. The line of thought which Nestorius had entered upon (under the influence, as it seems, of Theodore of Mopsuestia) led him to explain away the mystery of the Incarnation by reducing it to a mere association between the Eternal Word and a human Christ. The Alexandrian see had agents at Constantinople, and the denial, by Nestorius and his supporters, of the strict personal oneness between |God the Word| and the Son of Mary -- expressed by the formula, |Let no one call Mary Theotokos| -- was an event which was certain to excite the vigilant zeal of a prelate like Cyril, opposed, alike by temperament and antecedents, to whatever undermined the mysterious majesty of the Christian faith. Very early in Jan.429 Cyril dealt with the subject in his Paschal letter or homily, the 17th of the series; in which, while affirming with great vividness and emphasis the reality and permanence of Christ's manhood, he enforced the singleness of his Divine Personality, and applied to His human mother, in two distinct passages, a phrase even stronger than |Theotokos| -- meter Theou. About the end of Apr.429, when the controversial sermons of Nestorius -- exhibiting no little confusion of thought, but clearly indicating a disbelief in what is theologically termed the Personal Union -- had reached Egyptian monks, Cyril wrote to all who within his jurisdiction were |practising the solitary life,| a long letter, upholding the term |Theotokos| in its true sense, as not meaning |mother of the Godhead,| but mother, as regarded the manhood, of Him Who, being in the form of God, assumed the form of a servant, and, being the Lord of Glory, condescended to suffer the death of the cross. If it was true, Cyril argued, that Jesus Christ was God, it was by consequence not less true that His mother was |Theotokos.| If she was not rightly so called, her Son was a human individual external to the divine nature, and not in a true sense Emmanuel. This letter cites at length the Nicene Creed in its original form, ignoring the alterations made by the council of Constantinople, and insisting that the creed identified Jesus Christ with the Divine Co-essential Son. Nestorius was much displeased at the reception given to this letter by some official persons at Constantinople. He ordered one Photius to answer it, and encouraged some Alexandrians residing at the imperial city, who had been rebuked by Cyril for gross offences, to prefer complaints against him (Mansi, iv.1003, 887). On the other hand, Cyril, having also been interrogated by Celestine of Rome as to the genuineness of Nestorius's sermons, wrote his first letter to Nestorius (Cyr. Ep. p.19; Mansi, iv.883), the point of which was that the prevailing excitement had been caused, not by the letter to the monks of Egypt, but by Nestorius's own refusal to allow to Christ's mother a title which was the symbol of her Son's real Divinity. Cyril also referred to a work On the Holy and Co-essential Trinity, which he himself had written in the lifetime of Nestorius's predecessor Atticus, and in which he had used language on the Incarnation which harmonized with his letter to the monks. Nestorius replied very briefly, and in a courteous tone; although he intimated dislike of what he deemed harsh in Cyril's letter (Cyr. Ep. p.21; Mansi, iv.885). He evidently did not wish to quarrel with the see of Alexandria, although he practised considerable severities on monks of his own city who withstood him to the face. Cyril, too, was not forward to press the controversy to extremes. During the latter part of 429 he was even blamed by some for inactivity. But he may have written at this period, as Gamier thinks, his |Scholia,| or |Notes,| on the Incarnation of the Only-begotten (Mar. Merc. ii.216), and in Feb.430 (probably after hearing how Nestorius had upheld a bishop named Dorotheus in his anathema against the word |Theotokos|) he wrote, in synod, a second Ep. to Nestorius -- the letter which became a symbolic treatise sanctioned by general councils. (See it in Cyr. Ep. p.22; Mansi, iv.887; cf. Tillemont, xiv.338). Nothing can be more definite and luminous than his disclaimer of all Apollinarian notions, which had been imputed by Nestorius to those who confessed the |Theotokos|; his explanation of the idea intended by that phrase; his peremptory exclusion of the theory of a mere association as distinct from a hypostatic or personal union, and his not less emphatic assertion of the distinctness of the natures thus brought together in the one Christ. |Not that the difference of the natures was annulled by the union, but rather that one Godhead and Manhood constituted the one Lord Jesus Christ, by their ineffable concurrence into unity. . . . Thus we confess one Christ and Lord.| The answer of Nestorius was characterized by ignoratio elenchi, and could not be regarded as a satisfactory statement of belief (Cyr. Ep. p.25; Mansi, iv.891). Cyril wrote another letter to some of his own clergy resident at Constantinople; the Nestorian argument from the impassibility of the Godhead he put aside as not to the purpose; and charged Nestorianism with making two Christs and two Sons (Cyr. Ep. p.32; Mansi, iv.1003). This letter recognizes the proverbial eloquence of |John| Chrysostom, and expresses the writer's desire for peace, if peace could be had without a sacrifice of truth. He disapproved of a draft petition to the emperor, sent him by these clerics, as too vehement. In a similar strain he wrote to a common friend of Nestorius and himself, declaring earnestly that he cared for nothing so much as the faith, and desired that Nestorius might be preserved from the charge of heresy (Cyr. Ep. p.31, Mansi, iv.899). A long letter |on the Right Faith,| which he wrote about the same time to the emperor Theodosius, contained an elaborate survey of former heresies, and of the error now spreading in the church (Cyr. tom. v. par.2; Mansi, iv.617). Cyril's keen-eyed speculative orthodoxy did not stand coldly apart from all care for practical religion. He felt the vital importance of his cherished doctrine in its bearings on the Christian life; he urged in this treatise that if the Word were not personally incarnate, i.e. if the human Teacher and Sufferer were not really one with the eternal Son of God, the faith of Christian men would be made void, the work of their salvation annihilated, and the cross lose its virtue. For the very principle of Christian redemption lay in this, that it was one and the same |Ego| Who, possessing, by virtue of His incarnation, at once a divine and a human sphere of existence, could be at once the God of mankind and the Saviour Who died for them. In c.21 he dwells, in pursuance of this idea, on the death of Christ as being a full satisfaction (doron alethos antaxion). This treatise contains an argument on which Cyril was never weary of insisting: it was particularly congenial to the depth and awe, the richness and the tenderness, of his thoughts on the great mystery of incorporation into Christ. >From the admitted truth that the flesh of Christ was received in the Eucharist as life-giving, he argued that it must be, in a real sense, the flesh of God. In c.6 of the treatise, he says that Nestorians would not have erred by dwelling simply on the difference between the natures of |God| and |flesh| -- that difference was undeniable; but they went on to assert an individual and separate being for the man Jesus as apart from the Divine Word, and this was the very point of their heresy. In c.27 he rises to almost Chrysostomic eloquence when he sets forth the superangelic greatness involved in the idea of |the Lord of Glory.| Another treatise, in two books, was addressed to the princesses, Pulcheria, the gifted sister of the feeble emperor, Arcadia, and Marina (Cyr. tom. v. par.2; Mansi, iv.679 seq.). In bk. i. he argued at length from Scripture for the oneness and Divinity of Christ, for His position as the true object of faith, and for His office as life-giver and atoner; and among the texts he urged were Heb. i.3, 6, xiii.8; Tit. ii.13; I. Cor. ii.8; II. Cor. viii.9; Eph. iii.17; Gal. i.1; Phil. ii.6; Matt. xi.28, xvi.16, 20; John i.14, xvii.3; I. John v.5 (without the words about the |heavenly witnesses|). He laid great stress on the vastness of the claim advanced by and for Christ in Scripture, and on the unreasonableness of demanding so absolute an obedience if He were not personally Divine. He asked how the death of a mere man could be of such importance for the race? Many a saint had lived and died, but not one by dying had become the saviour of his fellows. He quoted nine passages from earlier writers in support of the term |Theotokos,| or of the doctrine which it guarded. In bk. ii. he explained texts relied on by Nestorians, including parts of Heb. ii. and Matt. xxvii.46, Luke ii.40, 52, John iv.22, Mark xii.32; in the last text seeming to recognize, as he does elsewhere (though sometimes favouring a different view), a limitation of knowledge in Christ's manhood, analogous to His submission, in His human sphere, to pain and want, and consistent with a perpetual omniscience in His Divine consciousness (ad Regin. ii.17). In accordance with the emphatic assertion (ii.7) of the value imparted to Christ's death by His Divinity, the work concludes with |for all our hope is in Christ, by Whom and with Whom,| etc.

In these treatises, if some texts are strained beyond their natural meaning, there is yet a remarkable exhibition of acuteness and fertility of thought, pervaded and quickened by what Dorner calls Cyril's |warm interest| in Christianity as a religion. Probably c. Apr.430 Cyril answered the letter of the Roman bishop, received a year before (Ep. p.26); he informed him that the main body of the faithful of Constantinople (acting on the principle fully recognized in the ancient church, that loyalty to the faith was a higher duty than ecclesiastical subordination) were holding off from the communion of Nestorius, but greatly needed support and countenance; and in very deferential terms asked Celestine to say whether any fellowship could be maintained by orthodox bishops with one who was disseminating heresy (Mansi, iv.1011). With this letter he sent a series of passages illustrative of what Nestorius held and of what church-writers had taught, translated into Latin |as well as Alexandrians could| perform such a task, and to be shewn by his messenger Posidonius to Celestine, if the latter had received anything from Nestorius. One other letter of Cyril's belongs to the summer of 430: he addressed himself to the aged Acacius, bp. of Berrhoea, who communicated the letter to John, patriarch of Antioch, but informed Cyril that many who had come to Syria, fresh from the preaching of Nestorius, were disposed to think him not committed to heresy. It is observable that Cyril tells Acacius that some had been led on by Nestorianism into an express denial that Christ was God (see Mansi, iv.1053).

We now reach a landmark in the story. On Aug.11, 430, Celestine, having held a synod which pronounced Nestorius heretical, gave Cyril a stringent commission (see this letter in Mansi, iv.1017) to |join the authority of the Roman see to his own| in warning Nestorius that unless a written retractation were executed within ten days, giving assurance of his accepting the faith as to |Christ our God,| which was held by the churches of Rome and Alexandria, he would be excluded from the communion of those churches, and |provision| would be made by them for the church of Constantinople, i.e. by the appointment of an orthodox bishop. Had Cyril been as violent and imperious as he is often said to have been, he would not have deferred by a single day the carrying out of these instructions. But he took time to assemble, at Alexandria, a |council of all Egypt,| and then, probably on Mon. Nov.3, 430, wrote his third Letter to Nestorius (Ep. p.57; Mansi, iv.1067; Routh, Scr. Op. ii.17), in which he required him to anathematize his errors, and added a long dogmatic exposition of the true sense of the Nicene Creed, with a careful disclaimer of all confusion between Godhead and manhood. To this letter were appended 12 |articles,| or |chapters,| anathematizing the various points of the Nestorian theory -- e.g. that Emmanuel is not really God, and Mary not Theotokos; that, the Word was not personally joined to flesh; that there was a |connexion| of two persons; that Christ is a |God-bearing man|; that He was a separate individual acted on by the Word, and called |God| along with Him; that His Flesh was not the Word's own; that the Word did not suffer death in the flesh. These propositions were not well calculated to reclaim Nestorius; nor were they, indeed, so worded throughout as to approve themselves to all who essentially agreed with Cyril as to the Personal Deity of Christ, and he was afterwards obliged to put forth explanations of their meaning. Cyril wrote two other letters to the clergy, laity, and monks of Constantinople, urging them to contend, or praising them for having already contended, for that faith in Christ's true Godhead of which |Theotokos| was the recognized expression (Mansi, iv.1094). Four bishops were sent from Alexandria to bear the synodal documents to Constantinople and deliver the anathemas to Nestorius in his palace, after the conclusion of the Eucharistic service, either on Sun. Nov.30, 430, or Sun. Dec.7. Nestorius met the denunciations of the Alexandrian synod by enlisting several Eastern bishops in his cause, including John of Antioch, and Theodoret, who accused Cyril of Apollinarianism; by preaching in an orthodox strain to his own people, and by framing 12 anathemas of his own, some of which betrayed confusion of thought, while some tended directly to confirm the charges against his teaching -- e.g. he would not allow Emmanuel to be called Very God. Theodoret, whose views on the subject were not as yet clear or consistent, composed a reply to Cyril. Andrew of Samosata, in the name of the |Eastern| bishops properly so called, also entered the lists against the great theologian of Egypt, who answered both his new antagonists in an Apology for the 12 articles (Mansi, v.19), and a Defence of them against Theodoret's objections, the latter addressed to a bishop named Euoptius (Mansi, v.81). These treatises threw light on the state of mind to which Cyril's anathemas had seemed so offensive. The Easterns, or Andrew speaking in their name, exhibit some remarkable misconceptions of Cyril's meaning -- e.g. they tax him with denying Christ's flesh to be of real human derivation; but they absolutely disclaim the view which would make Jesus merely a preeminent saint, and they speak of worship being due to the One Son. Theodoret uses much language which is prima facie Nestorian; his objections are pervaded by an ignoratio elenchi, and his language is repeatedly illogical and inconsistent; but he and Cyril were essentially nearer in belief than, at the time, they would have admitted (Hooker, v.53, 4). for Theodoret virtually owns the personal oneness, and explains the phrase |God assumed man| by |He assumed manhood.| Both writers speak severely of each other: Theodoret calls Cyril a wolf, and Cyril treats Theodoret as a calumniator. Cyril, in his Reply to the Easterns and in his letter to Euoptius, earnestly disclaims both forms of Apollinarianism -- the notion of a mindless manhood in Christ, and the notion of a body formed out of Godhead. The latter, he says, is excluded by John i.14. In the reply (on art.4) he admits |the language appropriate to each nature.| Cyril points out the confusions of thought which had misled Theodoret as to |God| and |Godhead|; insists that the eternal Son, retaining His divine dignity and perfections, condescended to assume the limitations of manhood; and so (ad Euopt.4, as in ad Regin. ii.17, etc.) explains Mark xii.32, and says, with a touch of devotional tenderness particularly refreshing amid the clash of polemics, |He wept as man, that He might stop thee from weeping. He is said to have been weak as to His manhood, that He might put an end to thy weakness| (ad Euopt.10). He adhered with characteristic definiteness to the point really involved -- the question whether Jesus were a human individual (to be viewed idikos, as he repeatedly says), or whether He were the Divine Son Himself appearing in human form and occupying, without prejudice to His inalienable and pre-existent majesty, a human sphere of existence. In the former case, the Son of Mary must be regarded simply as a very highly favoured saint, and Christianity loses its distinctive power and preciousness; in the latter case, He is a Divine Redeemer, and Christianity is a Gospel worthy of the name. |Let us all acknowledge as Saviour the Word of God, Who remained impassible in the nature of the Godhead, but suffered, as Peter said, in the flesh. For, by a true union, that body which tasted death was His very own. Else, how was |Christ from the Jews according to the flesh,| and |God over all, and blessed for ever, amen|? and into Whose death have we been baptized, and by confessing Whose resurrection are we justified? . . . The death of a mere man,| etc., |or do we, as is indeed the case, proclaim the death of God Who became man and suffered for us in flesh, and confessing His resurrection, put away the burden of sin?| (ad Euopt.) To this same period or the preceding year (429) may be assigned Cyril's five books Against Nestorius. In these he comments on passages in Nestorius's sermons, and by all forms of argument and illustration sets forth the question really at stake -- Had the Divine Son Himself become incarnate, or had He closely allied Himself to a man?

We must now return to the events of Nov.430. Before the Egyptian deputies could reach Constantinople, Theodosius II. issued letters to the metropolitans of his empire, summoning them to meet at Ephesus in the Pentecost of 431, with such bishops as each might select, to hold a general council. This resolution, taken at the instance of Nestorius, had the effect of suspending all hostile action on the part of any individual bishop or provincial synod. Theodosius, who was prejudiced against Cyril, wrote sharply to him, censuring his
|meddlesomeness| and |rashness,| and complaining of his having written separately to the princesses. In compliance with the imperial order, Cyril arrived at Ephesus with 50 bishops, about June 2, 431. For the details of the history of the Ephesine Council, or third oecumenical synod, see art. |Ephesus, Councils of,| in D. C. A. It is enough here to specify the occasions on which Cyril came prominently forward. A fortnight elapsed before the council was opened: Cyril, like other prelates, employed himself in strengthening the cause he had at heart by earnest addresses. After waiting long for the arrival of John of Antioch and his attendant bishops, Cyril received a cordial letter from his brother patriarch, announcing that he had been travelling incessantly for a month, and hoped to |embrace Cyril| in five or six days more (Ep. p.83). There also arrived two metropolitans, who bore from him a message to the bishops requesting them to proceed with business if he were delayed. The question at once arose -- |Should the bishops wait any longer?| It would have been clearly better, even as a matter of policy, to wait a few days for John's arrival. The cause of orthodoxy could never be aided by its being associated with, to say the least, the appearance of unfairness or impatience. But Cyril and his suffragans were probably not at all desirous of John's presence, for they knew he would be hostile to the Cyrilline articles: they encouraged the idea that he was purposely loitering from reluctance to join in measures against Nestorius (an idea which appears to have been unfounded, Evagr. i.3), and took advantage of the fact that other bishops were weary of waiting, the rather that illness, and even death, had occurred among them. So the council was opened on June 11, 431; and John's message, which evidently referred to a possible delay beyond the six days specified, was unjustifiably quoted to defend a refusal to wait even that period. In this it is impossible to acquit Cyril of blame; and the fault brought its own punishment in the confusions that ensued| (Neale, Hist. Alex. i.259).

Cyril presided in the assembly; not in virtue of the commission from Celestine to act in his stead -- which had been already acted upon in the Alexandrian council of Nov.430 -- but as the prelate of highest dignity then present, and as holding the proxy and representing the mind of the Roman bishop, until the Roman legates should arrive (see Tillem. xiv.393). Cyril called on the council to judge between himself and Nestorius: the main facts were stated by his secretary; when Nestorius refused to appear, Cyril's second letter to him was read, and at Cyril's request the bishops pronounced upon its orthodoxy, declaring it in entire accordance with the faith. His third letter was received merely with a tacit assent, which might be held to extend to the |articles.| (The council professed afterwards, that it had approved Cyril's epistles; Mansi, iv.1237.) After evidence as to Nestorius's opinions and the mind of orthodox Fathers had been laid before the council (great stress being doubtless laid on Nestorius's recent avowal, |I never will admit that a child of two or three months old was God,| Mansi, iv.1181, 1239), his deposition and excommunication were resolved on by the assembled bishops; and Cyril signed the sentence before his brethren in these words: |I, Cyril, bp. of Alexandria, sign, giving my judgment together with the council.|

When the patriarch of Antioch, with a few bishops, arrived on June 26 or 27, in vexation at the course taken by the majority, they held a |council| of their own, and |deposed| Cyril, and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, imputing to the former not only Apollinarianism, but also the heresy of the ultra-Arian rationalist Eunomius. On the other hand, the council of Ephesus, now reinforced by the Roman legates, treated Cyril and Celestine as one in faith, and proceeded to summon John -- Cyril being disposed, had not the bp. of Jerusalem prevented it, to move for a sentence of deposition on the patriarch of Antioch, after the first summons (see Mansi, iv.1311). Cyril repudiated and anathematized the heresies imputed to him, and coupled with them the Pelagian errors and those of Nestorius. John of Antioch, having disowned the council's summons, was excommunicated, with his adherents. Late in July count John, the imperial high treasurer, was sent by Theodosius to Ephesus, with a letter in which Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius were treated as deposed. Accordingly all three were arrested, and guards slept at Cyril's chamber door. His opponents induced Isidore of Pelusium to write to him, exhorting him to avoid the bad precedents of his uncle's violent conduct, and not to give occasion for the charge of personal animosity (Ep. i.310). Cyril, for his part, spoke, in a letter to three of his suffragans then at Constantinople (Ep. p.91), of infamous falsehoods circulated against him, but detected by count John. He thanked God for having been counted worthy to suffer, for His Name's sake, not only bonds but other indignities. He received from a priest named Alypius a letter describing him in glowing terms as an imitator of Athanasius. While the two rival assemblies of bishops, the council and the |conciliabulum,| sent deputies to the court of Theodosius, Cyril wrote an |Explanation| of his |articles,| vindicating them against the charge of a confusion between the Godhead and the Manhood, or of teaching inconsistent with the distinct existence of the latter, in the one Divine Person of the Incarnate Lord. Theodosius finally ordered Cyril and his friends to return home, but abstained from condemning the |Eastern| bishops, who on their side complained of his partiality to their opponents. On Oct.30, 431, Cyril returned to Alexandria; and shortly afterwards Maximian, a pious and simple-hearted man, who by virtue of an imperial mandate had been consecrated to the see of Constantinople in the room of Nestorius, announced his accession to Cyril, who in his reply compared him to the faithful Eliakim, invested with the stewardship of Hezekiah's household on the deprivation of the unworthy Shebna. This letter contained a statement of orthodox doctrine, and a disclaimer of all ideas of |confusion| or |alteration| in the divine nature of the Word (Ep. p.94 seq.; Mansi, v.257 seq.). Cyril next began a vindication of his conduct to be laid before the emperor (Mansi, v.225). Theodosius, hoping for a reconciliation, endeavoured to arrange a meeting between John and Cyril at Nicomedia. Cyril was now disposed to moderation, and resolved to insist only upon the condemnation of Nestorius and the recognition of Maximian. The meeting, it was found, could not take place; but a council at Antioch framed six articles, expressly rejecting those of Cyril, while accepting Athanasius's letter to Epictetus as an exposition of Nicene orthodoxy. Cyril's reply shewed that he had mastered his tendency to vehement and unyielding self-assertion. He wrote to Acacius of Berrhoea, the oldest bp. in Syria, who had forwarded to him the six articles by the hands of the |tribune and notary| Aristolaus. Cyril's letter (preserved, in a Lat. version, in the |Synodicon,| Mansi, v.831) is worth attention: he represented the impossibility of withdrawing what he had written against Nestorius -- it would be easy to come to a good understanding about the |articles| of the Alexandrian synod if only the Easterns would accept the deposition of Nestorius. |Those who anathematize them will see that the meaning of the articles is directed solely against his blasphemies.| For himself, Cyril disavowed and condemned once more the heresies imputed to him, and asserted the impassibility of the divine nature in Christ, while insisting that He, the Only-begotten Son, Himself |suffered for us in the flesh,| according to the words of St. Peter. This letter (referred to by Cyril in subsequent letters, Ep. pp.110, 152, 155) opened the way to his reconciliation with John. The latter, although in his recent council he had bound himself to demand a recantation of the Cyrilline articles, now declared that Cyril had fully cleared himself from all heretical opinions. After a conference with Acacius of Berrhoea, John sent to Alexandria, Paul bp. of Emesa, a man of experience whom they both could trust, to confer with Cyril (see Cyril's letters to Acacius and Donatus, Ep. pp.111, 156). When Paul reached Alexandria, Cyril was laid up with illness (Mansi, v.987), but, when able, received him, as Paul himself said, kindly and pacifically (Mansi, v.188). They began their conference: Paul presented to Cyril a confession of faith as exhibiting the mind of John of Antioch (Ep. p.103); it had been originally written at Ephesus by Theodoret (Tillem. xiv.531). |We confess,| so ran this formulary, |our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, to be perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and a body, before the ages begotten of the Father according to Godhead, but in the last days Himself the self-same, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary according to Manhood; of one essence with the Father as to Godhead, of one essence with us as to Manhood. For there took place an union of two natures; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this idea of an union without confusion, we confess the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because God the Word was incarnate and made Man, and from His very conception united to Himself the temple assumed from her.| The formulary, although it dwelt more than Cyril had been wont to do on the double aspect of the Incarnation, was accepted by Cyril as representing Paul's own faith, and he placed a corresponding statement in the hands of Paul. The latter asked whether he would stand by Athanasius's letter to Epictetus. |Certainly; but is your copy of it free of corruption?| Paul produced his copy; Cyril, comparing it with the authentic text, found that it had been tampered with (Mansi, v.325). After further conversation the two bishops agreed to |forget| the troubles of Ephesus. Paul gave Cyril a letter from John, which, though gentle and dignified in tone, referred to the |articles| in language which annoyed Cyril, and he spoke of the letter as |insulting.| Paul soothed him with courteous assurances, but Cyril proceeded to the point which John had ignored -- the recognition of the deposition of Nestorius, and the condemnation of his heresy. Paul offered to make such a declaration in John's name, but Cyril promptly and keenly insisted that John himself should make it (ib.313). Just as little could Cyril give way as to the four Nestorianizing metropolitans deposed by the new archbp. of Constantinople: that sentence, he insisted, must stand good (ib.349). Paul then, in writing, satisfied Cyril as to his own orthodoxy, and Cyril allowed him to join in the church-service of Alexandria, even inviting him to preach on Christmas Day, 432, in the great church (ib.293). The bp. of Emesa began with the angelic hymn, proceeded to the prophecy of Emmanuel, and then said, |Thus Mary, Mother of God, brings forth Emmanuel.| A characteristic outbreak of orthodox joy interrupted the discourse. The people cried out, |This is the faith! 'Tis God's own gift, O orthodox Cyril! This is what we wanted to hear.| Paul then went on to say that a combination of two perfect natures, the Godhead and Manhood, constituted |for us| the one Son, the one Christ, the one Lord. Again the cry arose, |Welcome, orthodox bishop!| Paul resumed his discourse, and explained St. Peter's confession as implying a duality of nature and an unity of person in Christ. On New Year's Day, 433 after alluding to Cyril as a kind-hearted trainer who had smiled upon his performance, he preached at greater length on the unity of the Person and the distinctness of the natures, as being co-ordinate and harmonious truths; and his teaching was heartily endorsed by Cyril, who sent two of his own clergy to accompany him and Aristolaus, the emperor's secretary, who was very zealous for the reunion, to Antioch, with a paper for John to sign, and a letter of communion to be given him when he had signed it. But Cyril considered Maximian also languid in the cause, and he wrote many letters to persons connected with the imperial court, including the |Augusta| Pulcheria, to bring their influence to bear upon John and separate him definitely and finally from Nestorius (Mansi, v.988). These letters were backed up by presents euphemistically called |blessings| (eulogiae), which were employed by Cyril as a matter of course, for he knew but little of delicacy and scrupulosity as to the means to be used in gaining a court to the church's interests. Cyril also assured Theognostus, Charmosynus, and Leontius, his |apocrisiarii| or church agents at Constantinople (Ep. p.152) that this peace with John implied no retractation of his old principles. In the spring of 433 John of Antioch wrote to Cyril, reciting the formulary of reunion, abandoning Nestorius, and condemning Nestorianism (Mansi, v.290). In another letter John entreated Cyril in a tone of warm friendship to believe that he was |the same that he had known in former days| (Ep. p.154) On Apr.23 (Pharmuthi 8) Cyril announced this reconciliation in a sermon (Mansi, v.310, 289), and began his reply to John, |Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad| (Ep. p.104; Mansi, v.301). In this letter (afterwards approved by the council of Chalcedon) he cited the text, |one Lord, one faith, one baptism,| as expressing the happiness of the restored peace; and added his usual disclaimers of all opinions inconsistent with the reality of Christ's manhood. He commented on John iii.13; I. Cor. xv.47, I. Pet. iv.1. He also sent to John a copy of the genuine text of Athanasius's letter to Epictetus. John himself became an object of suspicion and animosity to the thoroughgoing Nestorians; and even Theodoret, though he admitted that Cyril's recent language was orthodox, would not abandon Nestorius's cause. In another direction doubts and anxieties were excited by the language now sanctioned by Cyril. Isidore, to whom Cyril had always allowed great freedom of admonitory speech, and who had blamed him for unyieldingness, now expressed a fear that he had made too great concessions (Ep. i.324) Other friends of his were scandalized by his acceptance of the phrase |two natures.| Was not this, they began to ask, equivalent to a sanction of Nestorianism? To vindicate his orthodoxy herein, Cyril wrote a long letter to Acacius of Melitene (Ep. p.109; Mansi, v.309), who had signified to him that some disquietude was felt. He narrated the recent transactions; and after insisting shat the formulary was not (as some had represented it) a new creed, but simply a statement called forth by a special emergency (as those who signed it had been accused of rejecting the Nicene faith, and were therefore constrained to clear themselves), he proceeded to exhibit the essential difference between the formulary and the Nestorian error. Nestorius, in fact, asserted two Christs: the formulary confessed one, both divine and human. Then Cyril added that the two natures spoken of in the formulary, were indeed separate in mental conception, i.e. considered apart from Christ, but that |after their union| in Christ |the nature of the Son was but one, as belonging to one, but to One as made man and incarnate.| Again, |The nature of the Word is confessedly one, but has become incarnate,| for |the Word took the form of a servant,| and |in this sense only could a diversity of natures be recognized, for Godhead and Manhood are not the same in natural quality.| Thus, in regard to the Incarnation, |the mind sees two things united without confusion, and nowise regards them, when thus united, as separable, but confesses Him Who is from both, God, Son, and Christ, to be one.| |Two natures,| in Nestorius's mouth, meant two natures existing separately, in One Who was God and in One Who was Man; John of Antioch and his brethren, while admitting that Godhead and Manhood in Christ might be regarded as intrinsically different, yet unequivocally acknowledged His Person to be one. The phrase |one incarnate nature of God the Word, or |one nature, but that incarnate,| had been already (ad Regin. i.9) quoted by Cyril as Athanasian: although it is very doubtful whether the short tract On the Incarnation of God the Word, in which it is found, was really written by Athanasius. But, as now used by Cyril in his vindication of the formulary from Nestorianism, it became in after-days a stumbling-block, and was quoted in support of Monophysitism (Hooker, v.52, 4). Did, then, Cyril in fact hold what was condemned in 451 by the council of Chalcedon? Would he have denied the distinct co-existence of Godhead and Manhood in the one incarnate Saviour? Were the Fathers of Chalcedon wrong when they proclaimed Cyril and Leo to be essentially one in faith? What has been already quoted from the letter to Acacius of Melitene seems to warrant a negative answer to these questions. What Cyril meant by |one nature incarnate| was simply, |Christ is one.| He was referring to |nature| as existing in Christ's single Divine Personality (cf. adv. Nest. ii.; cf. note in Athan. Treatises, Lib. Fath. i.155). When he denounced the idea of the separation of the natures after the union, he was in fact denouncing the idea of a mere connexion or association between a human individual Jesus and the Divine Word. Therefore, when he maintained the nature to be one, he was speaking in a sense quite distinct from the Eutychian heresy, and quite consistent with the theology of Chalcedon. Other letters, written by Cyril under the same circumstances, throw light on his true meaning. Successus, an Isaurian bishop, had asked him whether the phrase |two natures| were admissible (Ep. p.135; Mansi, v.999). Cyril wrote two letters to him in reply. In the first, after strongly asserting the unity of the Son both before and since the Incarnation, he quoted the |one nature incarnate| as a phrase of the Fathers, and employed the illustration from soul and body, |two natures| being united in one man in order to set forth the combination of Godhead and Manhood in one Christ (cf. his Scholia de Inc.8). There was, he added, neither a conversion of Godhead into flesh nor a change of flesh into Godhead. In other words, Christ's body, though glorified, and existing as God's body, was not deprived of its human reality. In the second letter, replying to objections made by Successus to statements in the first, Cyril fully admitted that Christ |arrayed Himself with our nature,| so that in Him both Godhead and Manhood, in Christ, retained their natural distinctness (cf. p.143), and that the human nature was neither diminished nor subtracted. Further on he repeated the phrase |one nature, but that incarnate,| in the sense (as the context shews) of |one Who in His original nature was God, by incarnation becoming man.| In another letter he gave, to a priest named Eulogius, a similar account of the phrase, and obviously viewed it as guarding the truth of the Personal Union (Ep. p.133). In another, addressed to a bishop named Valerian (and remarkable for the emphasis with which the Divinity of Christ is exhibited as bearing on His Atonement), the word |nature,| in this connexion, is evidently used as synonymous with |person| or hypostasis; and as if specially anxious to exclude all possible misconception, he wrote: |He, being by nature God, became flesh, that is, perfect man. . . . As man He was partaker of our nature.| This language agrees with that of his 17th Paschal Homily (Cyr. v. ii.226). Cf. also his statement in adv. Nest. ii. t. vi.50, that while the divine and the human natures are different things, as all right-thinking men must know, yet after the Incarnation they must not be divided, for there is but one Christ. Again (ib. p.45) that Christ is not twofold is explained by the context to mean that Christ before and since the Incarnation is one and the same Person; and (ib. p.48), the reason for calling Christ's Godhead the phusis is explained by the consideration that He was originally God, while in the fifth book (ib. p.139) He is said to have given up His body to the laws of its own nature (tes idias phuseos.). In the ninth book, de S. Trinitate (dial. quod unus est Christus), he denies all transmutation or confusion of the natures, asserts the distinctness of Godhead and Manhood, adding that |the bush burning yet unconsumed was a type of the non-consumption of the Manhood of Christ in its contact with His Divinity| (cf. Scholia, 2, 9).

To return to the history. Maximian, dying in Apr.434, was succeeded by Proclus, whose glowing sermon on the Incarnation had been among the earliest expressions of orthodox zeal against the Nestorian theory, and who deserves to be remembered as a very signal example of the compatibility of orthodox zeal with charitable tenderness (Socr. vii.41). Soon after his accession the imperial court resolved to enforce on all Eastern bishops the acceptance of the concordat which had reconciled John of Antioch with Cyril, upon pain of expulsion from their dioceses. The Nestorians, on their side, were indefatigable in circulating the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had formed the theological mind of Nestorius; and Cyril, who was informed of this during a visit to Jerusalem, was stirred to new energy by the evident vitality of the theory which he so earnestly abhorred. He wrote to the |tribune| Aristolaus, and to John of Antioch, complaining that, as he was informed, some bishops were repudiating Nestorianism insincerely or inadequately, and were declaring that its author had been condemned merely for denying the |Theotokos| (Mansi, v.996, cf. ib.970). He urged that the bishops should anathematize Nestorianism in detail. John wished no new test to be imposed; and Cyril found he had gone too far (ib.969, 972, 996). John was much annoyed at Theodoret's pertinacious refusal to anathematize Nestorius -- a refusal in which Theodoret persisted until the eighth session of the council of Chalcedon (ib.997). As the Nestorianizers professed entire adhesion to the Nicene Creed, Cyril drew up an exposition of it (Ep. p.174, Mansi, v.383, cf. ib.975) addressed to certain |fathers of monks,| in which he urged the
incompatibility of that |venerable and oecumenical symbol of faith | with the denial of the personal unity of the Saviour. In this tract, a copy of which he sent to Theodosius, he disclaimed, as usual, any |fusion, commixture, or so-called consubstantiation| (sunousiosin) of the Godhead with the flesh. He drew up a short treatise in three books to prove that Mary was Theotokos, that Christ was one and not two, and that while He was impassible as God, He suffered for us in flesh that was His own. This he intended as an antidote to the Nestorian arguments which, as he learned, were rife in Syria (Mansi, v.995). The name of Theodore of Mopsuestia was at this time a watchword of eager controversy. Proclus of Constantinople, in his |Tome| addressed to the Armenian clergy, in which he spoke of |one incarnate person| (not |nature|) of God the Word, had condemned Theodore's opinions without naming him (ib.421): the messengers who carried this document to John of Antioch inserted Theodore's name, without authority from Proclus, as the author of certain passages selected for censure. John and his suffragans accepted the Tome, but declined to condemn Theodore by name. Proclus rejoined that he had never wished them to go beyond a condemnation of the extracts. Cyril, so far from feeling any tenderness towards Theodore, traced Nestorianism to his teaching and to that of Diodore of Tarsus (ib.974) and wrote vigorously in support of this thesis (ib.992). A synodal letter from John and his suffragans, stating their objections to Theodore's name being anathematized on the score of expressions which, they urged, could be taken in a sense accordant with the language of eminent Fathers, drew forth from Cyril a somewhat indignant reply. Theodore, he said (Ep. p.195), had |borne down full sail against the glory of Christ|; it was intolerable that any parallel should be drawn between his language and that of Athanasius or Basil: he insisted that no one should be allowed to preach Theodore's opinions; but he did not urge any condemnation of his memory, and even dwelt on the duty of welcoming all converts from Nestorianism without a word of reproach as to the past. He saw that it would be imprudent to proceed publicly against the memory of a theologian so highly esteemed that the people cried out in some Eastern churches, |We believe as Theodore did,| and would rather be |burnt| than disown him; and he wrote to Proclus advising that no further steps should be taken in the matter (Ep. p.199). The remaining events of Cyril's long episcopate may be told briefly. He wrote to Domnus, the successor of John in the see of Antioch (and afterwards unhappily conspicuous in the Eutychian controversy), in behalf of Athanasius sometime bp. of Perrha, who described himself, falsely it appears, as sorely wronged by some of his own clergy (Ep. p.208). In another letter to Domnus, peremptory in style, he took up the cause of another aged bishop named Peter, who professed to have been expelled and plundered of his property on the pretext of a renunciation of his see, which after all had been extorted from him (Ep. p.209). In both these cases Cyril shewed a somewhat impulsive readiness to believe the story of a petitioner, and a somewhat dictatorial temper in regard to the affairs of another patriarchate. He wrote also a work against the Anthropomorphites, whose wild fancies about the Divine nature (as being limited and corporeal) had given such trouble in the days of his predecessor; and in a letter on this subject to Calosirius, bp. of Arsinoe, he added a caution against the false mysticism which insisted on prayer to the exclusion of all labour, and on the |senseless| opinion that the Eucharistic consecration lost its efficacy if the sacrament was reserved until the following day. |Christ's holy Body,| wrote Cyril, |is not changed; but the power of consecration and the life-giving grace still remain in it| (Op. vi.365). In the last year of his life he wrote to Leo, then bp. of Rome (to whom, as archdeacon of Rome, he had written in 431 against the ambitious schemes, as he regarded them, of Juvenal bp. of Jerusalem [Leon. Ep.119, 4]) on the right calculation of Easter for a.d.444, which, according to the Alexandrian cycle of 19 years, he fixed for April 23. In 444, on June 9 or 27, his eventful life ended.

Cyril's character is not, of course, to be judged by the coarse and ferocious invective against his memory, quoted as Theodoret's in the fifth general council (Theod. Ep.180; see Tillem. xiv.784). If this were indeed the production of Theodoret, the reputation to suffer would assuredly be that writer's. What Cyril was, in his strength and in his weakness -- in his high-souled struggle for doctrines which were to him, as to all thoughtful believers in Christ's Divinity, the expressions of essential Christian belief; or in the moments when his old faults of vehemence and impatience reappeared in his conduct -- we have already seen. He started in public life, so to speak, with dangerous tendencies to vehemence and imperiousness which were fostered by the bad traditions of his uncle's episcopate and by the ample powers of his see. It would be impossible to maintain that these evils were wholly exhausted by the grave errors which -- exaggerations and false imputations set aside -- distinguished his conduct in the feud with the Jews and with Orestes; when, although guiltless of the blood of Hypatia, he must have felt that his previous violence had been taken as an encouragement by her fanatical murderers. The old impatience and absolutism were all too prominent at certain points of the Nestorian struggle; although on other occasions, as must be admitted by all fair judges, influences of a softening and chastening character had abated the turbid impetus of his zeal and had taught him to be moderate and patient. |We may,| says Dr. Newman (Hist. Sketches, iii.342), |hold St. Cyril a great servant of God, without considering ourselves obliged to defend certain passages of his ecclesiastical career. . . . Cyril's faults were not inconsistent with great and heroic virtues, faith, firmness, intrepidity, fortitude, endurance, perseverance.| Those who begin by condemning dogmatic zeal as a fierce and misplaced chivalry for a phantom, will find it most difficult to be just to a man like Cyril. But if his point of view, which was indeed that of many great religious heroes, and eminently of Athanasius, be fully understood and appreciated, it ought not to be difficult to do justice to his memory. The issue raised by Nestorianism was to Cyril a very plain one, involving the very essence of Apostolic Christianity. Whatever ambiguities might be raised by a Nestorian use of the word prosopon, it was clear to Cyril that the new theory amounted to a denial of the Word Incarnate. Nor was it a mere theory of the schools. Its promulgator held the great see of the Eastern capital, involving a central position and strong court influence, and was no mere amiable dreamer or scholastic pedant, whose fancies might die away if left to themselves. He has in modern times been spoken of as |the blameless Nestorius|: he was in his own times spoken of as |the incendiary| on account of a zeal against other forms of heresy which impelled him to take strong measures against opponents of his own. This was the enemy against whom Cyril did battle for the doctrine of a real Incarnation and a really Divine Christ. He had to reckon on opposition, not only from Nestorius himself, but from large numbers -- a miscellaneous company, including civil functionaries as well as prelates -- who accepted the Nestorian theology, or who thought strong language against it uncalled-for and offensive. He might have to encounter the displeasure of an absolute government -- he certainly had for some time the prospect of that displeasure, and of all its consequences; he had the burden of ill-health, of ever-present intense anxiety, of roughly expressed censure, of reiterated imputations affecting his own orthodoxy, of misconceptions and suspicions which hardly left him a moment's rest. Whatever faults there were in his conduct of the controversy, this at least must be said -- not only by mere eulogists of a canonized saint, but by those who care for the truth of history -- that the thought as well as the heart of Christendom has for ages accepted, as the expression of Christian truth, the principle upheld by Cyril against Nestorius. A real and profound question divided the disputants; and that stanza of Charles Wesley's Christmas hymn which begins,

|Christ, by highest heaven adored,|

conveys the Cyrilline or Ephesine answer to that question in a form which exhibits its close connexion with the deepest exigencies of spiritual life. Cyril, as a theological writer, has greater merits than are sometimes allowed by writers defective in a spirit of equity. His style, as Cave admits, may be deficient in elegance and in eloquence; he may be often tedious, and sometimes obscure, although, as Photius says (Cod.136), his Thesaurus is remarkable for its lucidity. His comments on Scripture may be charged with excessive mysticism, or with a perpetual tendency to bring forward his favourite theological idea. There may be weak points in his argument -- e.g. undue pressing of texts, and fallacious inferences, several of which might be cited from the treatise To the Princesses. But any one who consults, e.g., the Thesaurus, will acknowledge the ability with which Cyril follows up the theological line of Athanasius (see pp.12, 23, 27, 30, 50), and applies the Athanasian mode of thought to the treatment of Eunomian rationalism (p.263), and the vividness with which, in this and in other works, he brings out the Catholic interpretation of cardinal texts in N.T. His acquaintance with Greek literature and philosophy is evident from the work against Julian; but he speaks quite in the tone of Hippolytus's |Little Labyrinth| (Eus. v.28) when he deprecates an undue reliance on Aristotelian dialectics and a priori assumption on mysteries transcending human thought (Thesaur.87, de recta fide16, 17).

Fragments of Cyrilline treatises not otherwise extant are preserved in synodal acts and elsewhere, and other works, as his Paschal Cycles and The Failure of the Synagogue, are mentioned by Sigebert and Gennadius. The Monophysites used on festivals a |Liturgy of St. Cyril,| which is substantially identical with the Gk. |Liturgy of St. Mark| (see Palmer's Orig. Liturg. i.86, and Neale's Introd. East. Ch. i.324), and their traditionary belief, expressed in a passage cited from Abu'lberkat by Renaudot, Lit. Orient. i, 171, is that Cyril |completed| St. Mark's Liturgy. |It seems highly probable,| says Dr. Neale, quoting this, |that the liturgy of St. Mark came, as we have it now, from the hands of St. Cyril|; although, as Palmer says, the orthodox Alexandrians preferred to call it by the name of the Evangelist founder of their see. The Coptic Cyrilline Liturgy is of somewhat later date, and more diffuse in character. It seems not improbable that the majestic invocation of the Holy Spirit which is one of the distinctive ornaments of St. Mark's Liturgy, if it was not composed during the Macedonian controversy in the 4th cent., represents to us the lively zeal of the great upholder of the Hypostatic Union for the essential Divinity of the Third Person in the Godhead.

Cyril's works were well edited by John Aubert (1658) in six volumes, an edition not yet superseded; there is no Benedictine St. Cyril. In 1859 Dr. Payne Smith pub. Cyril's Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, trans. from a Syriac version. An elaborate edition by P. E. Pusey, M.A., of Christ Church, of the Commentary on the Minor Prophets (2 vols.) and the Commentary on S. John's Gospel (3 vols.) is pub. by the Clarendon Press, as is also the text and trans. with Lat. notes of the Comm. in Luc. ed. by R. P. Smith. An important work has recently been published by Dr. Bethune Baker, of Cambridge, entitled Nestorius and his Teaching, a Fresh Examination of the Evidence, which adduces much, from new discoveries; in vindication of Nestorius from the heresy attributed to him. See also CHRISTOLOGY, in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.).

[W.B.]

Cyrillus (13), hagiologist
Cyrillus (13), of Scythopolis (Bethshan), so called from his birthplace, a hagiologist, fl. c.555. His father, John, was famous for his religious life. Cyril commenced an ascetic career at the age of 16. On leaving his monastery to visit Jerusalem and the holy places, his mother bid him put himself under the instruction of John the Silentiary, by whom he was commended to Leontius, abbat of the monastery of St. Euthymius, who admitted him as a monk in 522. Thence Cyril passed to the Laura of St. Saba, where he commenced his sacred biographies with the Lives of St. Euthymius and St. Saba, deriving his information from the elder monks who had known those saints. He also wrote the Life of St. John the Silentiary and other biographies, affording a valuable picture of the inner life of the Eastern church in the 6th cent. They have been unfortunately largely interpolated by Metaphrastes. The following biographies are attributed to Cyril by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c.41, x.155): (1) S. Joannes Silentiarius (ap. Surium, May 13); (2) S. Euthymius (Cotelerius, Eccl. Graec. Monum. ii.200); (3) S. Sabas. (ib. iii.220); (4) Theodosius the Archimandrite (only found in Latin, of doubtful authenticity; (5) Cyriacus the Anchoret; (6) S. Theognius the Ascetic, bp. of Cyprus (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. u.s.; Cave, Hist. Lit. p. i.529).

[E.V.]

<<  Contents  >>





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy