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

A Dictionary Of Christian Biography And Literature by Henry Wace

Letter H

Habibus, deacon, martyr at Edessa
Habibus (2) (Abibus), deacon, martyr at Edessa in the reign of Licinius; mentioned in the Basilian Menologium, Nov.15, with the martyrs Gurias and Samonas, in whose tomb he was laid; at Dec.2 he has a separate notice. Simeon Metaphrastes in his lengthened account of those two martyrs (the Lat. in Surius, de Prob. Hist. SS. Nov.15, p.342, the Lat. and Gk. in Patr. Gk. cxvi.141) similarly embodies the history of Habib. Assemani notices him in his Bibl. Orient. (i.330, 331) from Metaphrastes, but not in his Acta Martyrum. The original Syriac account of Habib which Metaphrastes abridged has been discovered, and was ed. in 1864 by Dr. Wright with a trans. by Dr. Cureton (Ancient Syriac Documents, p.72, notes p.187). The Syrian author, whose name was Theophilus, professes to have been an eyewitness of the martyrdom (which he places on Sept.2) and a convert. The ancient Syrian Martyrology, another discovery trans. by Dr. Wright (Journ. Sac. Lit.1866, p.429), likewise commemorates Habib on Sept.2. Theophilus says that in the month Ab (i.e. Aug.) in the year 620 of the kingdom of Alexander of Macedon, in the consulate of Licinius and Constantine, in the days of Conon, bp. of Edessa, the emperor commanded the altars of the gods to be everywhere repaired, sacrifices and libations offered and incense burnt to Jupiter. Habib, a deacon of the village of Telzeha, went privately among the churches and villages encouraging the Christians not to comply. The Christians were more numerous than their persecutors, and word reached Edessa that even Constantine |in Gaul and Spain| had become Christian and did not sacrifice. Habib's proceedings were reported to Licinius, who sentenced him to die by fire. When this news reached Edessa, Habib was some 50 miles off at Zeugma, secretly encouraging the Christians there, and his family and friends at Telzeha were arrested. Hereupon, Habib went to Edessa and presented himself privately to Theotecnus, the head of the governor's household. This official desired to save Habib and pressed him to depart secretly, assuring him that his friends would soon be released. Habib, believing that cowardice would endanger his eternal salvation, persisted in surrender, and was led before the governor. On refusing to sacrifice, he was imprisoned, tortured, and then burned, after he had at great length uncompromisingly exposed the sin and folly of idolatry. The day of his imprisonment was the emperor's festival, and on the 2nd of Ilul (Sept.) he suffered. His dying prayer was, |O king Christ, for Thine is this world and Thine is the world to come, behold and see that while I might have been able to flee from these afflictions I did not flee, in order that I might not fall into the hands of Thy justice. Let therefore this fire in which I am to be burned be for a recompense before Thee, so that I may be delivered from that fire which is not quenched; and receive Thou my spirit into Thy presence through the Spirit of Thy Godhead, O glorious Son of the adorable Father.|

The year is given by Baronius, who had only Metaphrastes to guide him, as a.d.316 (A. E. ann.316, xlviii.). Assemani (Bibl. Or. i.331) with the same materials decides for 323. The details of Theophilus might seem to settle the point; but if his era is that of the Seleucidae, Ilul 2, 620 was Sept.2, 309, and Licinius only became master of the East in 313. The date therefore is still a difficulty.

[C.H.]

Hadrianus, Publius Aelius, emperor
Hadrianus (1), Publius Aelius, emperor 117-137. Born in 76, and placed, at the age of ten, on his father's death, under the guardianship of his cousin, Ulpius Trajanus, afterwards emperor, Hadrian was in his youth a diligent student of Greek literature, and entered on his career as military tribune in Lower Moesia in 95. On the death of Nerva in 97, Trajan became emperor, and Hadrian, on whom he bestowed such favours that men looked for a formal adoption, served in the wars with the Dacians, Pannonians, Sarmatians, and Parthians. During the campaign against the last-named, Trajan, leaving Hadrian in command of the army and of the province of Syria, started for Rome, but died at Selinus in Cilicia in 117. Hadrian had himself proclaimed emperor by the army, communicated the election to the senate, and received their formal sanction. His external policy was marked by the abandonment of any idea of extending the eastern frontier of the empire beyond the Euphrates. Having gained popular favour by gladiatorial games, large donations, and the remission of arrears of taxes, Hadrian devoted himself for several years from 120 to a personal inspection of the provinces. In 120-121 he visited Gaul, Germany, and Britain, erecting fortresses and strengthening the frontier defences, of which an example is his Roman wall from the Solway to the mouth of the Tyne. We may find traces, perhaps, of the eclectic tendency of his mind in the altars dedicated to Mithras and to an otherwise unknown goddess named Coventina or Conventina, found near the wall not far from Hexham. In 122 he came to Athens, which became his favourite residence, and the same eclectic tendency led him to seek initiation in the Eleusinian mysteries (a.d.125). On the death, probably self-sought, of his favourite Antinous, a Bithynian page of great beauty and genius, Hadrian paid his memory the divine honours given to emperors. Constellations were named after him, cities dedicated to him, incense burnt in his honour, and the art market flooded with statues and busts representing his exceeding beauty. The apotheosis of Antinous was the reductio at once ad absurdum and ad horribile of the decayed polytheism of the empire (Eus. H E. iv.8; Justin, Apol. i.39). In 131 the emperor began to execute the plan, conceived earlier in his reign, of making Jerusalem a Roman colonia, and rebuilding it as Aelia Capitolina, thus commemorating both the gens to which the emperor belonged and its consecration to the Capitolian Jupiter. At first the proposal was received tranquilly. The work of rebuilding was placed in the hands of a Jew, Aquila of Pontus, and the Jews petitioned for permission to rebuild their temple. They were met with studied indignity, and a plough was drawn over the site of the sacred place in token of its desecration. The city was filled with Roman emigrants, the Jews were forbidden to enter the city, but allowed, as if in bitter irony, on the anniversary of its capture by Titus to bewail their fate within its gates. On one of the gates a marble statue of the unclean beast was a direct insult to Jewish feeling, while Christian feeling was outraged by a statue of Jupiter on the site of the resurrection and of Venus on that of the crucifixion. Trees and statues were placed on the platform of the temple, and a grove to Adonis near the cave of the nativity at Bethlehem. Such persistent defiance of national feeling roused widespread indignation, which burst out under a leader whom we know by his assumed name of Bar-Cocheba (|the son of a star|) -- a name probably suggested by the imagery of Balaam (Num. xxiv.17), possibly also by the recollection of the |star in the east| of Matt. ii.2. He is described by Eusebius (H. E. iv.3) as a murderer and a robber (phonikos kai lestrikos) of the Barabbas type, but was recognized by Akiba, the leading rabbi of the time, as the Messiah, seized 50 fortresses and 985 villages, and established himself in the stronghold of Bethera, between Caesarea and Lydda (rebuilt by Hadrian and renamed Diospolis). The Christians of Palestine, true to the apostolic precept of submission to the powers that be, took no part in the insurrection, and were accordingly persecuted by the rebel leader and offered the alternative of denying the Messiahship of Jesus or the penalty of torture and death (ib. iv.8). Severus was recalled from Britain, the rebellion suppressed with a strong hand, and edicts of extreme stringency issued against the Jews, forbidding them to circumcise their children, keep the Sabbath, or educate their youth in the Law. Akiba died under torture, and a secret school for instruction in the Law, continuing the rabbinic traditions, was formed at Lydda (Jost, Judenthum, ii.7). To the Christian church in Judaea the suppression of the revolt and the tolerant spirit of the emperor brought relief. They left Pella, where they had taken refuge during the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, and returned to the holy city. Its 15 successive bishops had all been Hebrews, but now the mother-church of the world first came under the care of a gentile bishop (Eus. H. E. iv.5).

In his general treatment of Christians, Hadrian followed in the footsteps of Trajan. The more cultivated members of the church felt that in addressing the tolerant, eclectic emperor, |curiositatum omnium explorator,| as Tertullian calls him (Apol. c.5), they had a chance of a favourable hearing, and the age of apologists began. QUADRATUS presented his Apologia, laying stress on the publicity of the works of Christ, and appealing to still surviving eye-witnesses. ARISTIDES addressed to the emperor (a.d.133) a treatise, extant and admired in the time of Jerome, in defence of the Christians, and was said even to have been admitted to a personal hearing. Early in his reign, but probably a little later, an Asiatic official of high character, Serenius Granianus, applied to Hadrian for instructions as to the treatment of Christians, complaining that their enemies expected him to condemn them without a trial. The emperor thereupon addressed an official letter to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, regulating the mode of procedure against the persecuted sect. No encouragement was to be given to common informers (sukophantai) or to popular clamour. If the officials of the district (eparchiotai) were confident that they could sustain a prosecution, the matter was to be investigated in due course. Offenders against the laws were to be punished; but, above all things, the trade of the informer was to be checked (Eus. H. E. iv.8, 9). The character of Hadrian may be inferred from his policy. He had not the zeal of a persecutor nor the fear that leads to cruelty. His philosophy and his religion did not keep him from the infamy of an impure passion of the basest type. He adapted himself without difficulty to the worship of the place in which he was. At Rome he maintained the traditional sacred rites which had originated under the republic, and posed as the patron of Epictetus and the Stoicism identified with his name. At Athens he was initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries, and rose to the dignity of an Epoptes in the order, as one in the circle of its most esoteric teaching. He became an expert in the secrets of magic and astrology. To him, as he says in his letter to Servianus, the worshippers of Serapis and of Christ stood on the same footing. Rulers of synagogues, Christian bishops, Samaritan teachers, were all alike trading on the credulity of the multitude (Flavius Vopiscus, Saturn. cc.7, 8). According to a later writer, Lampridius (in Alex. Sev. c.43), his wide eclecticism led him at one time to erect temples without statues, which he intended to dedicate to Christ. He was restrained, it was reported, by oracles which declared that, if this were done, all other temples would be deserted and the religion of the empire subverted. But the absence of contemporary evidence of such an intention, on which Christian apologists would naturally have lain stress, leads us to reject Lampridius's explanation of these temples as an unauthenticated conjecture. More probably, as Casaubon suggests (Annot. in Lamprid. c.43), they were intended ultimately to be consecrated to Hadrian himself. So the imperial Sophist -- the term is used of Hadrian by Julian (Caesares p.28, ed.1583) -- passed through life, |holding no form of creed and contemplating all,| and the well-known lines --

|Animula, vagula, blandula,

Hospes, comesque corporis,

Quae nunc abibis in loca,

Pallidula, rigida, nudula?

Nec, ut soles, dabis jocos|

(Spartian. Vit. Hadr.)

shew a like dilettanteism in him to the last.

A reign like that of Hadrian naturally, on the whole, favoured the growth of the church. The popular cry, |Christianos ad loenes,| was hushed. Apologetic literature was an appeal to the intellect and judgment of mankind. The frivolous eclecticism of the emperor and yet more his deification of Antinous were enough to shake the allegiance of serious minds to the older system. Tolerance was, however, equally favourable to the growth of heresy; and to this reign we trace the rise and growth of the chief Gnostic sects of the 2nd cent., the followers of SATURNINUS in Syria, of BASILIDES, CARPOCRATES, and VALENTINUS in Egypt, of MARCION in Pontus (Eus. H. E. iv.7, 8). Cf., besides the authorities cited, Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. iii.; Milman, Hist. of Christ. bk. ii. c. vi.; Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Testimonies; c. xi.

[E.H.P.]

Hecebolius, a rhetor at Constantinople
Hecebolius or Hecebolus, a rhetor at Constantinople in the reign of Constantius, who professed himself a |fervent| Christian, and was therefore selected by that emperor as one of the teachers of Julian (Socr. iii.1, 13). After the death of Constantius, however, Hecebolius followed the example of his former pupil and became a |fierce pagan| (gorgos Hellen; Socr. u.s.13). He was in great favour with Julian, and appears to have been one of his familiar correspondents (Julian, Ep.19, ed. Heyler, p.23; Hekebolo), and seems to have had some civil office at Edessa. The Arians of that city, |in the insolence of wealth,| had violently attacked the Valentinians. Julian wrote to Hecebolius to say that, |since they had done what could not be allowed in any well-governed city,| |in order to help the men the more easily to enter the kingdom of heaven as it was prescribed| by their |most wonderful law, he had commanded all moneys to be taken away from the church of the Edessenes, that they might be distributed among the soldiers, and that its property should be confiscated to his private treasury; that being poor they might become wise and not lose the kingdom of heaven which they hoped for| (Julian, Ep.43, ed. Heyler, p.82; Baron. s.a.362, xiii.; Soz. vi.1). Such appropriation of church property was one of the crimes of which Julian was accused after his death (Greg. Naz. adv. Jul. Orat. iii.). The emperor adds that he had charged the inhabitants of Edessa to abstain from |riot and strife,| lest |they themselves| should suffer |the sword, exile, and fire.| The last sentence in the letter appears to intimate that he would hold Hecebolius personally responsible for the future good conduct of the city. After the death of Julian and the reversal of the imperial policy, Hecebolius ostentatiously professed extreme penitence for his apostasy and prostrated himself at the church door, crying to all that entered, |Trample upon me -- the salt that has lost its savour| (Socr. iii.13; Baron. u.s. = Matt. v.13). Baronius assumes the identity of the magistrate of Edessa with the |rhetor| of Constantinople (s.a.362, xiii. xiv.), but Tillemont regards them as different persons (Mém. vii.331, 332). Libanius mentions a Hecebolius, but gives us no clue to his history (Ep.309).

[T.W.D.]

Hedibia, a lady in Gaul
Hedibia (EDIBIA), a lady in Gaul, who corresponded with St. Jerome (then at Bethlehem) c.405. She was descended from the Druids, and held the hereditary office of priests of Belen (= Apollo) at Bayeux. Her grandfather and father (if majores is to be taken strictly) Patera and Delphidius (the names being in each case derived from their office) were remarkable men. Of Patera, Jerome says in his Chronicle, under a.d.339, |Patera rhetor Romae gloriosissime docet.| Delphidius was a writer in prose and verse and a celebrated advocate. Ammianus Marcellinus (xviii.1) tells of his pleading before the emperor Julian. Both became professors at Bordeaux (Ausonius, Carmen, Prof. Burd. iv. and v.). The wife and daughter of Delphidius became entangled in the Zoroastrian teaching of Priscillian, and suffered death in the persecution of his followers (Sulp. Sev. Hist. Sac. ii.63, 64; Prosper Aquit. Chron.; Auson. Carmen, v.). Hedibia was a diligent student of Scripture, and, finding no one to assist her, sent, by her friend Apodemius, a list of questions to Jerome. He answered them in a long letter (Ep.120, ed. Vall.). We hear of her again as a friend of Artemia, wife of Rusticus, on whose account she again wrote to Jerome (Ep.122, ed. Vall.).

[W.H.F.]

Hegesippus, father of church history
Hegesippus (1), commonly known as the father of church history, although his works, except a few fragments which will be found in Routh (Rel. Sacr. i. pp.207-219) and in Grabe (Spicil. ii.203-214), have perished. Nothing positive is known of his birth or early circumstances. From his use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic language of Palestine, his insertion in his history of words in the Hebrew dialect, and his mention of unwritten traditions of the Jews, Eusebius infers that he was a Hebrew (H. E. iv.22), but possibly, as conjectured by Weizsäcker (Herzog, Encyc. v.647), Eusebius knew this as a fact from other sources also. We owe our only information as to his date to a statement of his own, preserved by Eusebius (iv.22), which is understood to mean that at Rome he compiled a succession of the bishops of the Roman see to the time of Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. After this statement Hegesippus is represented as adding, |and to Anicetus succeeds Soter, after whom Eleutherus.| Much as the interpretation of these words has been disputed, it does not seem difficult to gather that Hegesippus means that the list of bishops compiled by him at Rome was drawn from the authentic records of the church there. That list closed with Anicetus. He was afterwards able to add the names of Soter and Eleutherus. It thus appears that he was at Rome in the days of Anicetus and made his inquiries then, but did not publish them till considerably later. But Anicetus, according to Lipsius (Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe), was bp. of Rome 156-167, and Eleutherus 175-189. Hegesippus had thus written much of his history previous to a.d.167, and published it in the time of Eleutherus, perhaps early in his episcopate. Any difficulty in accepting these dates has been occasioned by the rendering given to another passage of Eusebius (iv.8), where he quotes Hegesippus as speaking of certain games (agon) instituted in honour of Antinous, a slave of Hadrian, of which he says eph' hemon genomenos (a better established reading than ginomenos). But these words seem simply to mean that the games had been instituted in his own time, thus illustrating the mechri nun of the preceding sentence. Hadrian reigned 117-138, so that if Hegesippus published c.180, being then well advanced in life, he might well remember the times of that emperor. This derives confirmation from a statement of Jerome, generally regarded as somewhat extravagant, that the life of Hegesippus had bordered on the apostolic age (|vicinus apostolicorum temporum,| de Vir. Ill. c.22). But there is no extravagance in the remark. If Hegesippus was born c.120 or earlier, he may well be described as having lived near the times of St. John. We may, therefore, fix the bloom of Hegesippus's life about the middle of the 2nd cent.

His history embraced, so far as we may judge from its fragments, numerous miscellaneous observations, recollections, and traditions, jotted down without regard to order, as they occurred to the author or came under his notice during his travels. Jerome tells us that the work contained the events of the church from Palestine to Rome, and from the death of Christ to the writer's own day. It is not a regular history of the church, Weizsäcker well remarking that, in that case, the story of James the Just ought to have been found in the first book, not in the last.

Its general style was thought plain and unpretending, says Jerome, and with this description what remains sufficiently agrees. The question of its trustworthiness is of greater moment. The account given in it of James the head of the church in Jerusalem has led to many charges against Hegesippus of not having been careful enough to prove what he relates. He has been thought to be contradicted by Josephus, who tells us that |Ananus, the high-priest, assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus Who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned| (Ant. xx.9, 2). We may be permitted to doubt, however, whether the sentence thus referred to was carried out, for not only was it unlawful for the Sanhedrin to punish by death without consent of the Roman authorities, but Josephus informs us immediately after that the charge of the citizens against Ananus was, that it was not lawful for him to assemble a Sanhedrin without the procurator's assent, nothing being said of the stoning to death. Further, Eusebius, who has preserved the narrative of Hegesippus, and the early Fathers who allude to it, appear to have placed in it implicit confidence; and there is nothing improbable in most, if not even in all, of the particulars mentioned. Eusebius speaks of him in the most commendatory terms, and quotes him on numerous occasions (see H. E. ii.23; iii.11, 16, 20, 32; iv.8, 11, 22), illustrating his own words in iv.8, pleistais kechremetha phonais. Such confidence appears to have been deserved. Hegesippus had an inquiring mind, and had travelled much; he endeavoured to learn all he could of the past and present state of the churches that he visited: at Corinth the first epistle of Clement excited his curiosity; at Rome the history of its early bishops. All this, and his unpretending and unexaggerated style, shows him as very far from being either a hasty observer or a credulous chronicler.

An important question remains: Was Hegesippus of the Judaizing Christian party?

Baur looks upon him as representing the narrowest section of the Jewish Christians, even as a most declared enemy of St. Paul, travelling like a commissioned agent in the interests of the Judaizers (K. G. i. p.84; so also Schwegler, Nachap. Zeit, i. p.342, etc.). This view is founded mainly upon an extract from his works, preserved in Photius (see in Routh, R. S. i. p.219), where Hegesippus comments on the words, |Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for the just,| |Such words are spoken in vain, and those who use them lie against the Holy Scriptures and the Lord Who says, 'Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear.'| It is argued that Hegesippus is here directly attacking St. Paul's words in I. Cor. ii.9; and the inference is that Hegesippus was keenly Judaic. We know that the Gnostics were in the habit of so using the words in question, and that they described by means of them the very essence of that spiritual insight which the neophyte who had just sworn the oath of allegiance to them received, |And when he [i.e. he who is about to be initiated] has sworn this oath, he goes on to the Good One, and beholds 'whatever things eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man'| (Hippolytus, Ref. of all Heresies, i. p.193, T. &T. Clark). It is much the more probable inference, therefore, that Hegesippus refers to this Gnostic misinterpretation of the words and not to St. Paul (cf. Routh, R. S. i. p.281; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der Altk. Kirche, p.267; Hilgenfeld, Die Apost. Väter, p.102). Further, Hegesippus must have known that Clement, whose epistle he approved, quotes in c. xxxiv., for a purpose precisely similar to that of the apostle, the very passage in question, though with a slight variation in the words. How, then, can he have held the contrary opinion as to the use made of it by St. Paul? It is obviously a particular application of the passage, different from that of the apostle, that he has in view.

In the light of these considerations, Hegesippus appears to have been not a Judaizing but a Catholic Christian; and, if so, he becomes a witness not only for the catholicity in the main of the Christian church of the 2nd cent., but for the extent to which Catholic truth prevailed in it, for his evidence, whatever its purport, has reference to the condition of the church upon a large scale. Either, therefore, over this wide extent the church was as a whole marked by a narrow Judaic spirit, or over the same wide extent it was catholic in spirit, with heretical sects struggling to corrupt its faith. If our verdict be in favour of the latter view, it becomes impossible to look at Hegesippus in the light in which he has been presented by the Tübingen school. We must regard him as a Catholic, not as a Judaizing Christian, and his statements as to the condition of the church in his day become a powerful argument against, rather than in favour of, the conclusions of that school. Cf. Zahn, Forschungen, 1900, vi.228-273.

[W.M.]

Hegesippus, author
Hegesippus (2) (Egesippus), the alleged author of a work of which a translation from Greek into Latin, or what purported to be such, appeared c.400, and is commonly referred to as de Bello Judaico or as de Excidio Urbis Hierosolymitanae. It is mainly taken from the Wars of Josephus. The translator freely adds to his author, sometimes from the later books of the Antiquities of Josephus, sometimes from Roman historians and other sources, and also freely composes speeches for the actors.

The work is that of an earnest defender of the Christian faith. An approximation to his date is supplied by several passages; as when he speaks of Constantinople having long become the second city of the Roman empire (iii.5, p.179), and of Antioch, once the metropolis of the Persians, being in his time the defence of the Byzantines against that people. He also speaks of the triumphs of the Romans in |Scotia| and in |Saxonia,| using language strikingly similar to that of Claudian (c.398) (v.18, p.299; Claud. de iv. Cons. Honor.31-34). The work early acquired a considerable reputation. Some have ascribed the translation to Ambrose. The Benedictines, however, strongly reject the Ambrosian authorship, asserting that it contains nothing whatever in Ambrose's style; while Galland earnestly contends for it, and reprints an elaborate dissertation of Mazochius which he regards as conclusive (Galland. Biblioth. Patr. vii. prolegom. p. xxix.). The editors of the Patrologia incline to reject the Ambrosias authorship, though they print it among his writings (xv.1962). The most correct edition (Marburg, 1858, 1864, 4to) was commenced by Prof. C. F. Weber of Marburg, and completed after his death by Prof. Julius Caesar, who elaborately discussed the authorship and date (pp.389-399). Cf. G. Landgraf, |Die Hegesippus Frage| in Archiv. f. Latin Lexicogr. (1902), xii.465·472, who decides in favour of the Ambrosian authorship.

[T.W.D.]

Helena, companion of Simon Magus
Helena (1), said to have been the companion of SIMON Magus. According to Justin Martyr (Apol. i.26) and Irenaeus (i.23, p.99), who possibly makes use of a lost work of Justin's, she was a prostitute whom Simon had purchased from a brothel at Tyre and led about, holding her up to the veneration of his disciples. Giving himself out to be the Supreme Power and the Father above all, he taught, says Irenaeus, that |she was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all things, by whom in the beginning he conceived the thought of making the angels and archangels; for that this Conception proceeded forth from him and, knowing her father's wishes, descended to the lower world, and produced the angels and powers, by whom also he said that this world was made. But after she had produced them, she was detained by them through envy . . . and . . . confined in a human body, and for ages passed into other female bodies, as if from one vessel into another. He said, also, that she was that Helen on account of whom the Trojan war was fought; . . . that after passing from one body to another, and constantly meeting with insult, at last she became a public prostitute, and that she was 'the lost sheep.' On this account he had come that he might first of all reclaim her and free her from her chains, and then give salvation to men through the knowledge of himself.| The same story is told by Hippolytus (Ref. vi.19, p.174), Tertullian (de Anima, 34), Epiphanius (Haer.21), Philaster (Haer.29), Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i.1). Tertullian evidently knows no more than he read in Irenaeus; but Hippolytus, who had read the Megale Apophasis, gives some additional particulars, e.g. that Simon allegorized the story of the wooden horse and of Helen and her torch. The wooden horse must also have been mentioned in the earlier treatise against heresies, used by Epiphanius and Philaster, both of whom state that Simon expounded it as representing the ignorance of the nations. Epiphanius, then, it may be believed, did not invent some other particulars, in which he differs from or goes beyond Irenaeus. He states that Simon called this conception (Ennoea) Prunicus and Holy Spirit; and he gives a different account, in some respects, of the reasons for her descent into the lower world. According to this account, she was sent in order to rob the Archons, the framers of this world, of their power, by enticing them to desire her beauty, and setting them in hostility to one another.

The honour paid to Helena by the followers of Simon was known to Celsus, who says (v.62) that certain Simonians were also called Heleniani, from Helena, or else from a teacher Helenus. We are told also by Irenaeus and Hippolytus that the Simonians had images of Simon as Jupiter and of Helen as Minerva, which they honoured, calling the former lord, the latter lady. This adaptation of the myth of Athene springing from the head of Zeus to the alleged relation of Ennoea to the first Father is of a piece with the appropriation of other Grecian myths by these heretics.

The doctrine thus attributed to Simon has close amity with that of other Gnostic systems, more especially that of the Ophites, described at the end of bk. i. of Irenaeus, except that in the Simonian system one female personage fills parts which in other systems are distributed among more than one. But in several systems we have the association with the First Cause of a female principle, his thought or conception; and we have the myth of the descent of a Sophia into the lower material regions, her sufferings from the hostility of the powers who rule there, her struggles with them, and her ultimate redemption. Peculiar to Simon is his doctrine of the transmigration of souls and his identification, by means of it, of himself and his female companion with the two principal personages of the Gnostic mythology. Simon, moreover, persuaded his followers not only to condone his connexion with a degraded person, but to accept the fact of her degradation fully admitted as only a greater proof of his redemptive power. We find it easier to believe, therefore, that the story had a foundation in fact than that it was imagined without any. On the other hand, it does not seem likely that Simon could have been the first Gnostic, it being more credible that he turned to his account a mythology already current than that he could have obtained acceptance for his tale of Ennoea, if invented for the first time for his own justification.

Baur has suggested (Christliche Gnosis, p.308) that Justin in his account of the honours paid at Samaria to Simon and Helena may have been misled by the honours there paid to Phoenician sun and moon divinities of similar names. On this and other cognate questions see SIMON. Suffice it here to say that one strong fact in support of his theory, viz. that in the Clementine Recognitions (ii.14, preserved in the Latin of Rufinus) the companion of Simon is called Luna, may have originated in an early error of transcription. She is Helena in the corresponding passage of the Clementine Homilies, ii.23; and we find elsewhere the false reading Selene for Helene, e.g. in Augustine (de Haer.1).

[G.S.]

Helena, St., mother of Constantine the Great
Helena (2), St., or Flavia Julia Helena Augusta, first wife of Constantius Chlorus, and mother of Constantine the Great, born c.248, died c.327.

Little is known for certain of her life, except that she was mother of Constantine the Great and when about 80 years old undertook a remarkable pilgrimage to Palestine, which resulted in the adornment and increased veneration of the holy places.

She was doubtless of humble parentage, being, according to one story, the daughter of an innkeeper (Anon. Valesii 2, 2, |matre vilissima,| Ambrose, de Obitu Theodosii, § 42, p.295). Constantius when he made her acquaintance was a young officer in the army, of good family and position, nearly related, by the female line, to the emperor Claudius, and appears to have at first united her to himself by the looser tie then customary between persons of such different conditions (Hieron. Chron. anno.2322; Orosius, vii.25; Chron. Pasch. a.d.304, vol. i. p.516, ed. Bonn; Zos. ii.8). The relation of |concubinatus| might be a lifelong one and did not necessarily imply immorality. In outward appearance it differed nothing from the ordinary civil marriage by mutual consent, and was sometimes called |conjugium inaequale.| Her son Constantine, apparently her only child, was born probably in 274, at Naissus in Dardania, the country where his father's family had for some time been settled. After his birth Constantius probably advanced Helena to the position of a lawful wife. That she had this position is expressly stated by some of our authorities, but the very emphasis of their assertion implies that there was something peculiar about the case (Eus. H. E. viii.13, 12, paida gnesion . . . katalipon and the inscription from Salerno given below). Respect for Constantine would naturally prevent writers in his reign from stating the circumstances in detail. It may be, however, that his law to legitimatize the children of a concubine |per subsequens matrimonium| was suggested by his mother's experience.

After living with Constantius some 20 years Helena was divorced on the occasion of his elevation to the dignity of Caesar in 292; the Augustus Maximian, in choosing him for his colleague, requiring this, as a matter of policy, in order that Constanius might marry his own step-daughter, Theodora (Eutrop. Brev. ix.22; Victor, de Caesaribus, 39; Epitome, 54) -- a proceeding which has parallels in Roman history. The looseness of the marriage tie among the Romans is a quite sufficient explanation of these acts, without supposing any offence or misconduct on the part of the wife, or any special heartlessness on that of the husband. We know nothing of her life during the remainder of her husband's reign. When Constantine succeeded in 306, he probably recalled his mother to the court, but direct proof of this is wanting. We have a coin stamped HELENA. N.F. i.e. nobilissima femina, with a head on one side and a star in a laurel crown upon the other, perhaps struck in her honour whilst Constantine was still Caesar. The statement of Eusebius that Constantine paid his mother great honours, and caused her to be proclaimed Augusta to all the troops, and struck her image on gold coins, is no doubt correct, but is unfortunately unaccompanied by dates (Vita Const. iii.47). Silver and copper coins are found with the name Flavia Helena Augusta, struck in her lifetime. Others with the remarkable epigraph Fl. Jul. Helenae Aug. were struck at Constantinople and Treves as memorials after her death, and Theodora was also similarly commemorated, to mark the reconciliation of the two branches of the family. Helena is styled Augusta in inscriptions, but in none necessarily earlier than 320 (Mommsen, Inscr. Neap.106, given below; Inscr. Urbis Romae, C. I. L. v.1134-1136).

Eusebius also tells us that through Constantine she became a Christian (V. C. iii.57), and is supported (whatever the support may be worth) by the probably spurious letters preserved in the Acts of St. Silvester. [[279]CONSTANTINE.] We must therefore reject the story which ascribes his conversion to his mother's influence (Theod. i.18, and the late and fabulous Eutychius Alexandrinus, pp.408, 456, ed. Oxon.).

The following inscription from Salerno marks the power of Helena in her son's court: |To our sovereign lady Flavia Augusta Helena, the most chaste wife of the divine Constantius, the mother of our Lord Constantine, the greatest, most pious and victorious Augustus, the grandmother of our Lords Crispus and Constantine and Constantius, the most blessed and fortunate Caesars, this is erected by Alpinius Magnus, vir clarissimus, corrector of Lucania and Bruttii, devoted to her excellence and piety| (Mommsen, u.s. Orell.1074, Wilmanns 1079).

In 326 Crispus was put to death on an obscure charge by his father's orders. Tradition attributes this dark act to Fausta; and Helena's bitter complaints about her grandson's death are said to have irritated Constantine to execute his wife by way of retribution (Vict. Epit.41, Fausta conjuge ut putant suggerente Crispum filium necari jussit. Dehine uxorem suam Faustam in balneas ardentes conjectam interemit, cum eum mater Helena dolore nimie nepotis increparet).

Eusebius speaks strongly of her youthful spirit when she, in fulfilment of a vow, made her pilgrimage to the Holy Land, notwithstanding her great age, nearly 80 years (V. C. iii.42, cf.46). She received almost unlimited supplies of money from her son and spent it in royal charities to the poor and bounties to the soldiery; as well as using her power to free prisoners and criminals condemned to the mines and to recall persons from exile (ib.44). She was a frequent attendant at the church services, and adorned the buildings with costly offerings (ib.45). Her death cannot have been earlier than 327, because she did not make her pilgrimage until after the death of Crispus. Tillemont puts it in 328, and it may leave been later. (See further, Clinton, F. R. ii.80, 81.) Her body was carried with great pomp to |the imperial city,| i.e. probably, Constantinople (Eus. V. C. iii.47; Socr. i.17, thus glosses the phrase -- eis ten basileuousan nean Romen). It was believed, however, in the West that she was buried at Rome, and there is a tradition that in 480 her body was stolen thence by a monk Theogisus and brought to Hautvilliers in the diocese of Rheims. Others say that it is still in the porphyry vase in the church of Ara Coeli (Tillem. Mém. t. vii. n.7). The place too of her death is strangely uncertain. Eusebius's silence would imply that she died in Palestine; but if the traditions of her bounty to the people and church of Cyprus on her way home are of any value, it must have been somewhere nearer Rome or Constantinople. These traditions may be seen in M. de Mas Letrie's Hist. de l'Ile de Chypre sous les Lusignan (Paris, 1852-1861); Church Qtly. Rev. vol. vii. pp.186 f.

[J.W.]

Invention of the Cross. -- It is in connexion with this famous story that the name of Helena is especially interesting to the student of church history. Its truth has been much discussed, and we will briefly summarize the evidence of the ancient authorities.

(1) In the very interesting itinerary of the anonymous Pilgrim from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, generally referred to a.d.333, seven years after the date assigned to the finding of the cross (Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii.771), we have a description of the city, and many traditional sites of events both in O. and N. T. are mentioned. Among these are the house of Caiaphas with the pillar at which our Lord was scourged, the praetorium of Pontius Pilate, the little hill (monticulus) of Golgotha, and, a stone's throw from it, the cave of the resurrection. On the latter spot a beautiful basilica erected by Constantine is noticed, as also on Mount Olivet and at Bethlehem. Yet there is no allusion to the cross, nor is the name of Helena mentioned.

(2) The Life of Constantine by Eusebius was written probably in 338, five years after the visit of the Bordeaux Pilgrim. He records the visit of Helena to Jerusalem, but does not connect her name with the place of Crucifixion nor with the Holy Sepulchre. He tells us that Constantine built a house of prayer on the site of the Resurrection and beautified the caves connected with our Lord's Birth and Ascension, and that he did so in memory of his mother, who had built two churches, one at Bethlehem, the other on the Mount of Ascension. Thus of the three famous caves, Eusebius connects Helena not with that of the Resurrection, but only with the other two. He indeed says that these were not the only churches she built, but it is hardly conceivable that he should have left the one on the site of the Resurrection unspecified. The original motive of her journey, he says, was to return thanks to God for His peculiar mercies to her family and to inquire as to the welfare of the people of the country. His account of the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre by Constantine is not free from difficulty. It is not easy to say whether he represents its discovery as being before or after the death of Helena. His language is general, but the presumption is that, if it had been before, her name would have been connected with the event. He does not imply that any difficulty was experienced in finding the site of the tomb, but there is nothing as to the cross. All his words bear upon the Resurrection, not the Passion, of our Lord. But in Constantine's letter to Macarius, bp. of Jerusalem, which he inserts, there are one or two expressions of which the same cannot be said. Allowing for the excesses of hyperbolical language, it is still hard to understand the words, |When the cave was opened, the sight which met the eyes excelled all possible eulogy, as much as heavenly things excel earthly,| unless some kind of memorial other than the tomb itself was discovered; and immediately afterwards we have two expressions referring definitely to our Lord's Passion. The first is, to gar gnorisma tou hagiotatou ekeinou pathous hupo te ge palai kruptomenon; and the second, aph' hou (since) tou soteriou pathous pistin eis phos proegagen (sc. the tomb). At the same time it is difficult to believe that, had the cross or any part of it been discovered, it should not have been more exactly described, and the most probable explanation is that pathos is used to describe the whole scene of Redemption, of which the Resurrection was a part (Eus. Vit. Const. iii.26-42, Patr. Gk. xx.1086). That the place was very early venerated is proved by Eusebius's statement (Comm. on Ps. lxxxvii.18) that marvels (thaumata) were even then wrought at the tomb of Christ.

(3) Cyril of Jerusalem, whose catechetical lectures were delivered, he says, upon the very spot where our Lord was crucified, and, as we know from other sources, not more than 20 years after the alleged discovery (viz. in 346), has three allusions to the wood of the cross (iv.10, x.19, xiii.4). The most definite is in x.19, where he describes it as |until to-day visible amongst us| (mechri semeron par hemin phainomenon), |and now filling nearly the whole world by means of those who in faith take from it.| In his letter to Constantius, which, however, is of doubtful authenticity [[280]CYRIL], it is distinctly stated that the cross was discovered in the reign of Constantine (c.3). The first quotations prove that it was believed in his day that the real wood of our Lord's cross had been discovered, but do not give the grounds of the belief. Nor, though he speaks of the cross, does he connect it with St. Helena. Thus none of our three earliest authorities speak of her as the discoverer.

(4) St. Chrysostom, writing probably before 387, speaks of the wood of the true cross (Patr. Gk. xlviii.826).

(5) Sulpicius Severus (c.395) tells us that Helena built three basilicas (not two, as in Eusebius), one on each of the sites of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. The site of the Passion, he says, was discovered by Helena, but he does not add that it was by supernatural help. Three crosses were discovered, and the right one ascertained by the miraculous restoration to life of a dead body (Hist. Sacr. i.33, Patr. Gk. xx.148).

(6) St. Ambrose, writing in 395, says that Helena was inspired by the Spirit with the desire to search for the cross, that she distinguished the true cross by its title (thus differing from Sulpicius and all later writers), that two of the nails were used by the emperor, one being fixed in his crown and the other employed as a bit for his bridle (de Obitu Theodosii c.41 ff., Patr. Gk. xvi.1399).

(7) Rufinus (writing in 400, according to the Life in Migne's ed.) tells us further that not only was the journey inspired by God, but that the place of the Passion was miraculously revealed; that the three crosses were found |confuso ordine,| and the title separately; that the true cross was discovered by the miraculous healing of a sick lady (not the revival of a corpse, as above); that part of the wood was sent to Constantine, and part left at Jerusalem in a silver casket (cf. mechri semeron phainomenon in Cyril's description above). (H. E. i.7, 8, Patr. Gk. xxi.475.)

(8) Paulinus of Nola, writing (c.403) to Sulpicius Severus, and sending him a piece, as he says, of the true cross brought from Jerusalem by Benedicta Melanius, adds an account of its original discovery, because, as he says, it is so difficult to credit. He says that Helena went to rescue the holy places, adorned the site of our Lord's Birth in addition to the other three sites, and discovered the place of the Passion by the concurrent testimony of many Jews and Christians in the city. He adds that, though pieces were frequently taken from the cross, its original bulk was miraculously preserved (Ep. xxxi.4, Patr. Gk. lxi.325).

(9) St. Jerome, in his Comm. on Zech. xiv.20 (Patr. Lat. xxv.1540), probably written a.d.406, mentions the nail from the cross which was used for the emperor's bridle, as related in many other writers, and in Ep. lviii. (ib. xxii.581) speaks of the images of Jove and Venus which stood until the time of Constantine on the sites of the Resurrection and of the Passion respectively.

(10) St. Cyril of Alexandria (c.420) mentions as a report (phasi) that the wood of the cross had been found at different times (kata kairous) with the nails still fixed in it (Comm. on Zech. xiv.20, Patr. Gk. lxxii.271).

(11) Socrates (c.430) informs us that Helena was told in a night vision to go to Jerusalem; that she found the site of the Passion with difficulty, though he alludes to no supernatural aid; that Macarius suggested the means of distinguishing the true cross, viz. by applying it to a woman on the point of death; that the empress erected |new Jerusalem| on the site (a phrase evidently taken from Eusebius); and that the emperor put one of the nails on his statue at Constantinople, as many inhabitants testified (H. E. i.17, Patr. Gk. lxvii.118).

(12) Sozomen (c.430) claims good authority for his account, and states that Constantine, in gratitude for the council of Nicaea, wished to build a church on Golgotha; that Helena about the same time went to Palestine to pray and to look for the sacred sites. He does not, however, mention any divine impulse. The difficulty of discovery was caused, he says, by the Greeks having defiled them to stop the growing threskeia; the site of the Sepulchre was made known, as some say, by a Hebrew living in the East, from documentary evidence, but more probably by signs and dreams from God. He says that the crosses were found near the same spot (heterothi peri ton auton topon) as they had been left by the soldiers in confused order, the inscription still remaining on the tablet. He mentions two miracles: the healing of a woman with an incurable disease and the raising of a corpse, combining the other accounts; and adds that the greater part of the cross was still preserved at Jerusalem (H. E. ii.1, 2, Patr. Gk. lxvii.929).

(13) Theodoret (c.448) inserts the letter of Constantine to Macarius, and follows the order of Eusebius, representing, however, Helena's journey, more definitely than Eusebius does, as consequent upon the finding of the Sepulchre by Constantine. But his account seems inconsistent. The crosses, he says, were found near the Lord's tomb -- para to mnema to Despotikon (H. E. i.16, 17, Patr. Gk. lxxxii.955).

(14) St. Leo (454), in writing to Juvenal, bp. of Jerusalem, speaks of the constant witness borne at Jerusalem to the reality of Christ's Passion by the existence of the cross (Ep. cxxxix.2, Patr. liv.1106).

(15) St. Gregory of Tours (d.595) adds that discovery was made on May 3, 326; that, during a great storm which occurred soon after, Helena put one of the nails into the sea, which was at once calmed; that two more were used for the emperor's bridle, and the fourth placed on the head of his statue; that the lance, crown of thorns, and pillar of scourging were preserved and worked miracles (Lib. Mirac. i.5, Patr. Lat. lxxi.709), and the cross found by the aid of a Jew, afterwards baptized as Quiriacus (Hist. Franc. i.34, Patr. Lat. lxxi.179).

Thus no detailed story is found until nearly 70 years after the event, and then in the West only. The vagueness of St. Cyril of Alexandria is particularly observable. Small differences of detail occur; the last author cited adds several particulars not included in the other accounts, and there are features in the story which look like invention or exaggeration. On the whole, considering that our earliest authorities do not represent Helena as the discoverer and that the story gradually develops, it seems probable that she had no part in the discovery of the cross, even if it took place, which itself seems exceedingly doubtful. That the site of the Holy Sepulchre was discovered, or supposed to be discovered, in the reign of Constantine, there seems every reason to believe; and it is easy to understand how marvels would grow up around it.

[M.F.A.]

Heliodorus, bp. of Altinum
Heliodorus (7), bp. of Altinum near Aquileia, c.400, had served originally as a soldier, but had been ordained before we first hear of him. He belonged to a band of friends drawn together at Aquileia, c.372, for the study of Scripture and the practice of asceticism, which included St. Jerome, Evagrius afterwards bp. of Antioch, Rufinus, Bonosus, and Chromatius afterwards bp. of Aquileia. The passion for asceticism and the troubles which arose about Jerome made the companions resolve, under the guidance of Evagrius, to go to Syria and Antioch. Heliodorus went on to Jerusalem, where he enjoyed the hospitality of Florentius, who, having devoted himself to the ascetic life, employed his wealth in the entertainment of pilgrims (Hieron. Ep. iv. ed. Vall.). Returning to Antioch, he found Jerome resolved to go into the solitude of the desert of Chalcis. Heliodorus felt that he himself had a call to the pastoral life, having a sister and a nephew dependent on him (Hieron. Ep. lx.9, ed. Vall.). He therefore returned to his native Aquileia, holding out to his friend some hopes that he might rejoin him one day in the desert (ib.). Jerome wrote to him on his return to Italy a letter, reproaching him for turning back from the more perfect service, which afterwards had a great effect in furthering asceticism and became so celebrated that a Roman lady, Fabiola, knew it by heart (Hieron. Ep. lxxvii.9, ed. Vall.; Ep. xiv.11). But their friendship was never broken. Heliodorus continued in the pastoral office, and not long afterwards became bp. of Altinum. He was present in 381 as a bishop at the council of Aquileia. In after-years he was closely allied with Chromatius, bp. of Aquileia, and they both kept up communications with Jerome, then residing at Bethlehem. They took a warm interest in Jerome's translation of the Scriptures, and frequently wrote to him, exhorting him to complete the long-delayed work. They supported amanuenses to assist him; and by the grateful mention of their aid in the prefaces to the books last translated, their names are for ever associated with the great work of the Vulgate (|Preface to the Books of Solomon and to Tobit,| Jerome's Works, vol. ix.1305, x.26; Migne's ed. of Vallarsi's Jerome). Cappelletti (Le Chiese d'Italia, v.516, 610) reckons his successor in the see of Altinum to have been Ambrosius, a.d.407.

[W.H.F.]

Helladius, bp. of Tarsus
Helladius (4), bp. of Tarsus c.430, a disciple of St. Theodosius of Antioch, after whose death (c.412) he presided over the monastery he had founded near Rhosus in Cilicia. Having spent 60 years in monastic life, he succeeded Marianus, bp. of the metropolitan see of Tarsus (Theod. Vit. Patr. c.10). His episcopate illustrates the stormy period of the council of Ephesus. He was one of those who protested against commencing the council before the arrival of John of Antioch and the Oriental bishops (Baluz. Nov. Concil. Coll. p.697), and he joined the opposition council (conciliabulum) presided over by John upon his arrival. He supported the counter-remonstrances addressed to the emperors by Nestorius (ib.703), and his name is appended to the synodal letter to the clergy and laity of Hierapolis (ib.705) and to that to John of Antioch and Theodoret and the other members of the Oriental deputation to Theodosius (ib.725). Helladius steadily ignored the deposition of Nestorius and withheld all recognition of Maximian as his successor. John of Antioch wrote, commending his action (ib.752, c.48). When the rival leaders sought peace, Helladius kept aloof, and on the receipt of the six articles drawn up by John at a council at Antioch, which ultimately opened the way for reconcilation, he and Alexander of Hierapolis rejected the terms and all communion with Cyril. He wrote to Alexander that, wearied by the struggle and sick at heart at the defection of his fellow-combatants, he longed to retire to a monastery, and was only restrained by his care for his flock (ib.770, c.68). The year 433 saw the concordat between Cyril and John confirmed, to the indignation of the irreconcilable party. A synod held by Helladius at Tarsus indignantly repudiated the |execrable agreement,| and declared that the condemnation could not be removed from |the Egyptian| until he had |anathematized his own anathematisms.| The firmness of Helladius rejoiced Alexander, who wrote that he intended to hold a synod himself, begging Helladius, whom he regarded as his leader, to attend it and sign its decrees (ib.713, c.110; 814, c.111; 815, c.114). Helladius with Eutherius of Tyana next drew up a long letter to pope Sixtus, giving their account of the council of Ephesus and begging him as a new Moses to save the true Israel from the persecution of the Egyptians. This was sent round to obtain the signatures of other bishops (ib.817 sqq. c.117). At this period we have a letter from Theodoret, complaining that Helladius refused to answer him and seemed to regard him as a deserter. Theodoret had. accepted Cyril's letter because he found it orthodox, but he would never desert Nestorius (ib.813, c.110). The resolution of Helladius now began to break down. The concordat was accepted by an increasing number of Oriental prelates and he was left more and more alone. John wrote to complain of his obstinacy (ib.842, c.140). Theodosius threatened to put the civil power in motion against him and the other recusants. He, Alexander, Theodoret, and Maximian were ordered to accept the concordat or resign their sees. All eventually yielded except Alexander. The quaestor Domitian and Theodoret both urged Helladius to submit (ib.829, c.125; 859, c.160), and this was made easier by the death of Maximian, Apr.12, 434, and the succession of the saintly Proclus (Socr. H. E. vii.41). The orthodoxy of the new bishop was readily acknowledged by Helladius (Baluz.850, c.148), who, having determined on yielding, wrote to Alexander to explain his conduct (ib.862, c.164). Alexander bitterly reproached him with his weakness (ib.863, c.164), but the latter convoked the bishops of his province, whose synodical letters to Theodosius declared their complete acceptance of all required of them: admission of the decrees of the council of Ephesus, communion with Cyril, the ratification of Nestorius's sentence of deposition, and the anathematization of him and his adherents (ib.887, c.192). Helladius thus saved himself from deposition and exile at the expense of consistency. He had now to justify his conduct to Nestorius, whom he had repeatedly promised never to forsake. The task was no easy one; nor can we say that he fulfilled it with any honour to himself. He wrote Nestorius that though through men's evil deeds everything had turned out directly contrary to his prayers, his feeling towards him remained unchanged, and that, as he knew he was still struggling for true piety, he believed that he would joyfully endure all laid upon him, and that he hoped he might be reckoned with him at the last judgment, when his soul, tried by so many and great temptations, would shine forth. He excuses himself for joining Theodoret and those who had accepted the concordat, as the letters produced from Cyril were in perfect harmony with apostolical traditions (ib.888, c.193). Then Helladius passes from the history. The letters are printed by Chr. Lupus (Ep. Ephesinae, Nos.68, 111, 114, 144, 154, 193) and by Baluze, Concil. Nov. Collect. in the Tragoedia Irenaei, cc.68, 111, 114, 117, 130, 164, 192, 193. Tillem. Mém. t. xiv.; Le Quien, Or. Christ. t. ii, p 874; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p.418.

[E.V.]

Helvidius, a Western writer
Helvidius, a Western writer who, like Novatian and Pelagius, Jovinian and Vigilantius, put forward opinions on
anthropological subjects opposed to the generally received teaching of the church in their day. The only extant contemporary notice of him is the short tract against him by St. Jerome (Opp. ii. p.203-230, ed. Vall.), written when they were both at Rome, while pope Damasus was alive. It appeared, according to Vallarsius, a.d.383. St. Jerome says he had put off answering him for some time: |Ne respondendo dignus fieret, qui vinceretur|; and he describes him throughout as |hominem rusticanum, et vix primis quoque imbutum literis| (§ 1); besides being wholly unknown to him: |Ego ipse, qui contra te scribo, quum in eadem urbe consistam, albus, ut aiunt, aterve sis, nescio.| St. Jerome speaks of his own work in writing to Pammachius as |librum contra Helvidium de beatae Mariae virginitate perpetuâ| (Ep. xlviii. § 17), this being what his opponent had denied in the first instance, though the outcome of his opinions had been to rank virginity below matrimony. Helvidius sought countenance for his first point in the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. St. Jerome shews (§ 17) he had misrepresented the latter; of Tertullian, whose writings may still speak for themselves, he merely says, |Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse.| But, in any case, he retorts with much force: What avail straggling opinions against primitive truth? |Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commovere: Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus Ebionem, et Theodotum Byzantium, Valentinum, haec eadem sentientes, plena sapientiae volumina conscripserunt. Quae si legisses aliquando, plus saperes.| This argument is just as suitable to our own as it was to patristic times, never losing anything by repetition. What had Helvidius to oppose to it in this case? Nothing, unless his adversary misrepresents him, but novel interpretations of Scripture by himself. St. Jerome therefore refutes him only so far as to point out that there is no necessity for understanding any of the passages adduced by him otherwise than the church had understood them hitherto; but that, in any case, the interpretations of them offered by Helvidius were delusive. For the application of the views of Helvidius to the question of the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother see Lightfoot, Galatians, pp.247-282, and Murray's Illus. B. D. (1908), art. JAMES. As Jerome nowhere charges Helvidius with having been |a disciple of Auxentius,| the Arian bp. of Milan, or |an imitator of Symmachus,| the champion of idolatry, we may well ask with Vallarsius where Gennadius, who wrote more than a century later, got authority for both statements (de Script. Eccl. c.33) which Cave repeats in part (Hist. Lit. i.278). Neither St. Ambrose nor St. Augustine mentions him when, in writing on Virginity, they join St. Jerome in condemning his views. His followers constitute the 84th of the heresies enumerated by the latter.

[E.S.FF.]

Henoticon, The
Henoticon, The, or Instrument of Union, a document owing its existence to Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, and probably the production of his pen, put forth by the emperor Zeno, a.d.482, on his restoration to the throne, after the discomfiture of the usurper Basiliscus, with the view of putting an end to the dissensions caused by what Gibbon calls |the obstinate and sanguinary zeal of the Monophysites.| Like every endeavour, however well meant, to cover radical differences by a vague comprehensiveness, it not only failed to secure union but aggravated the divisions it was intended to cure, and created a schism which divided the East and West for nearly 40 years, lasting down to the reign of Justinian and the popedom of Hormisdas.

The immediate cause of its issue was the dissension between the rival occupants of the patriarchal see of Alexandria. On the death of Timotheus Salofaciolus in 482, John Talaia, the oeconomus of the Alexandrian church, was elected by the orthodox party. He at once, according to custom, dispatched synodical letters to the chief bishops of Christendom, to notify his election. Those addressed to Simplicius of Rome and Calandion of Antioch were duly received; but the letters for Acacius and Zeno were delayed, and Acacius heard of John's appointment from another quarter. Thinking the seeming neglect a studied insult, Acacius and Gennadius, bp. of Hermopolis Minor, a relation of Timotheus Salofaciolus, and |apocrisiarius| or legate of the see of Alexandria, who conceived that he too had been slighted by the new patriarch, determined to compass his overthrow. They represented to Zeno that Talaia was unworthy of the patriarchate, both as having replaced the name of Dioscorus on the diptychs, and as having perjured himself by accepting the see of Alexandria, after having, as was asserted, taken an oath that he would not seek for it. Zeno readily gave credence to these charges, and when it was further represented that, if he recognized Peter Mongus, the deposed patriarch, peace would be restored, he wrote to Simplicius, stating his grounds for hesitating to sanction the appointment of John, and urging the restoration of Peter Mongus to put an end to the distractions of the church. Simplicius replied, June 482, that he would delay recognizing John as patriarch until the grave charges brought by Zeno could be investigated; but he utterly refused to allow the elevation of a convicted heretic such as Peter Mongus to the patriarchal see. His return to the true faith might restore him to communion, but could not render him worthy to be a chief ruler of the church ( Liberat. Diac. Breviar. cc.16, 17; Evagr. H. E. iii.12). This opposition roused the indignation of Zeno, who issued imperative commands to Pergamius, the new prefect of Egypt, then about to sail for Alexandria, and to Apollonius the governor, to expel John Talaia and seat Peter Mongus in his place. Acacius persuaded Zeno to present himself to the world in the novel character of an expounder of the faith of the Catholic church. The |Henoticon| was drawn up, and as it did not directly mention the council of Chalcedon and a hypothetical allusion in it was capable of being construed in a depreciatory sense, it could be accepted by those who, like Mongus, had hitherto rejected that council's decrees. The friends of Mongus undertook that he would adopt it, and on this he was recognized by Zeno and Acacius as the canonical patriarch and his name inserted in the diptychs.

The |Henoticon| was directed to the bishops and people in Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; but, as Tillemont has remarked (Mém. eccl. xvi.327), it was really addressed only to those who had separated themselves from the church, i.e. to the Monophysites or semi-Eutychians. The original document is given by Evagrius (H. E. iii.14) and in a not very clear Latin translation by Liberatus (Breviar. c.18; Labbe, Concil. v.767). It commences by stating that |certain abbats, hermits, and other reverend persons had presented to the emperor a petition, supplicating him to restore the unity of the churches, and enlarging on the lamentable results of the late divisions.| On this account, and knowing also that the strength and shield of the empire rested in the one true faith declared by the holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea, confirmed by those who met at Constantinople and followed by those who had condemned Nestorius at the council of Ephesus, the emperor declares that |the creed so made and confirmed is the one only symbol of faith, and that he has held, holds, and will hold no other, and will regard all who hold another as aliens, and that in this alone those who desire saving baptism must be baptized.| All who hold other views he anathematizes, and recognizes the twelve chapters of Cyril as a symbolical book. The document then proceeds to declare the orthodox faith, viz. |that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, and Himself God, incarnate, consubstantial with the Father according to His Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to His manhood, that He came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and that He is One Son, not two.| That |it was this one and the same Son of God Who wrought miracles, and endured the sufferings which He underwent voluntarily in His flesh.| Those |who divide or confound the natures, or admit only a phantastical incarnation,| are to be rejected, |since the incarnation without sin of the Mother of God did not cause the addition of a Son, for the Trinity remained even when one Person of the Trinity, God the Word, became incarnate.| It asserts that this is no new form of faith, and anathematizes all who have ever thought or do think, |anything to the contrary, either now or at any other time, either at Chalcedon or in any other synod,| especially Nestorius and Eutyches and their followers. It closes with an earnest appeal to all to return to the church which, |as a loving mother, opens her longing arms to receive them.|

Such was the document which was to |combine all the churches in one harmonious confederacy.| It was |a work of some skill, of some adroitness, in attempting to reconcile, in eluding, evading difficulties; it is subtle to escape subtleties| (Milman, Hist. of Lat. Christ. bk. iii. c. i. vol. i. p.248). The crucial test of the unity or duality of the natures of the Incarnate Word is left an open question, on which a difference of opinion might be lawfully permitted. Gibbon's verdict is by no means an unfair one, that |it accurately represents the Catholic faith of the incarnation without adopting or disclaiming the peculiar terms of the hostile sects| (vol. vi. p.44, c. xlvii.). But its fatal error was its feebleness, and that it endeavoured to substitute for real unity of doctrine a fictitious cohesion of discordant elements. The Monophysites who subscribed were to be admitted into communion without being required to give up their distinctive doctrines; while their opponents were left free to maintain the authority of the decrees of Chalcedon and the tome of Leo. The resulting peace was naturally more apparent than real and satisfied no one. The Catholic party, zealous in their advocacy of the council of Chalcedon, had no liking for a document which disparaged its authority and suggested the possible erroneousness of its decisions. The Monophysites, on the other hand, clamoured for a more definite condemnation of a council which they regarded as heretical. The high Chalcedonian party, chiefly consisting of the monastic orders, condemned the |Henoticon| as tainted with Eutychianism, and, on the other hand, the Eutychians or Monophysites, indignant with Mongus for turning traitor to their cause, separated themselves, and, forming a distinct body without any chief leader and not holding communion with the patriarch, were designated |the headless sect,| |Acephali.| A third body of dissidents was formed by the high ecclesiastical party, who were offended at the presumption of the emperor in assuming a right to issue decrees on spiritual matters, |a right,| writes Milman, (u.s. p.235), |complacently admitted when ratifying or compulsorily enforcing ecclesiastical decrees, and usually adopted without scruple on other occasions by the party with which the court happened to side.| A fourth party was that of the centre or moderates, who were weary of strife, or too loyal or too cowardly to resist the imperial power. This party of the centre was in communion with Peter Mongus, who had at once signed the |Henoticon,| and had had it read in church at a public festival and openly commended it to the adoption of the faithful. Violence and falsehood characterized the conduct of Mongus. As soon as he felt himself safe in his seat, his overbearing temper knew no bounds. He removed from the diptychs the names of Proterius and Timotheus Salofaciolus, disinterring the remains of the latter and casting them out of the church; inserted the names of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus; and anathematized the council of Chalcedon and the tome of Leo. When called to account by Acacius, he coolly denied the anathemas, and, professed his acceptance of the faith as declared at Chalcedon. He wrote to the same effect to Simplicius, expressing a desire to be received into communion by him (Evagr. H. E. iii.17; Liberat. Breviar. c.18). Such double-dealing estranged many of his own party, and the discussions of which the unhappy |instrument of union| was the parent were still further aggravated by the cruel persecution of the orthodox throughout the whole of Egypt by the new patriarch. In bold defiance of the prohibitions of the emperor, all, whether clerics, monks, or laymen, who refused to accept the |Henoticon| were subjected to expulsion and serious maltreatment. (Evagr. H. E. iii.22). At this crisis Simplicius died, a.d.483. The first act of his successor, Felix II., was an indignant rejection of the |Henoticon,| as an insult to the council of Chalcedon, as an audacious act of the emperor Zeno, who dared to dictate articles of faith, and as a seed-plot of impiety (Theod. Lect. ap. Milman, u.s. p.236). He also anathematized all bishops who had subscribed this edict. This anathema included nearly all the bishops of the East. A strong admonitory letter was addressed by Felix to Acacius, and another in milder terms to Zeno, the authors of the |Henoticon.| All remonstrance proving vain, Felix fulminated an anathema against Acacius, deposing and excommunicating him, July 28, a.d.484 (Liberat. c.18; Labbe, Concil. iv.1072). This anathema severed the whole of the Eastern church from the West for nearly 40 years. [[281]ACACIUS.] Neither emperor nor patriarch took much heed of the condemnation of the Roman see, and continued to press the |Henoticon| everywhere, ejecting bishops who withheld their signatures and refused to communicate with Peter Mongus (Theoph. p.114; Liberat. c.18; Viet. Tunun.Chron.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi. p.168; Aece, Art. xcv.). Calandion, patriarch of Antioch, was deposed, and Peter the Fuller reinstated. Thus the three chief sees of the East were in constrained communion and nearly all the suffragan bishops had been silenced or deposed. Zeno and Acacius had |made a solitude and called it peace.| It would be tedious to narrate in detail the subsequent issues of this unhappy attempt to force discordant elements into external union which continued under Acacius's successors and under the emperor Anastasius. Anastasius required toleration of the bishops who were forbidden to force the decrees of Chalcedon on a reluctant diocese or to compel one which had accepted that council to abandon it. Those who violated this law of toleration were deposed with impartial severity (Evagr. H. E. iii.30). Euphemius was deposed from Constantinople a.d.495. Macedonius, his successor, began by subscribing the |Henoticon,| but overawed by the obstinate orthodoxy of the |Acoemetae| and other monastic bodies of Constantinople, whom he had undertaken to reconcile to that instrument, he became an ardent partisan of the council of Chalcedon, and, after having headed the religious tumults in the city which at one time threatened Anastasius's throne, was in his turn deposed and succeeded by Timotheus, a.d.511. The new patriarch not only signed the |Henoticon,| but pronounced an anathema on the council of Chalcedon. Flavianus, accused of being a concealed Nestorian, was ejected from Antioch in a.d.512, where the Monophysite Severus, who had raised religious riots in the streets of Alexandria and Constantinople, reigned supreme. Elias of Jerusalem, though making large concessions to the Catholic party, refused to go all lengths with them, and was deposed in 513. |Throughout Asiatic Christendom it was the same wild struggle. Bishops deposed quietly, or, where resistance was made, the two factions fighting in the streets, in the churches. Cities, even the holiest places, ran with blood| (Milman, u.s. p.245).

The |Henoticon,| so fruitful a source of dissension in the East, became also the watchword of rival parties in the West. Gelasius, succeeding Anastasius II., sought to re-unite the churches by the proposal, couched in the very spirit of the |Henoticon,| that Acacius's name should be quietly left on the diptychs. On his death in 498 a contested election ensued, exasperated by differences of opinion on the |Henoticon| and the schisms in the East. Two rival pontiffs were consecrated on Dec.22, a.d.499 -- Laurentius an advocate of union, and Symmachus its uncompromising opponent. Theodoric decided in favour of Symmachus, who had received the largest number of votes. This choice was fatal to the restoration of peace in the East on the terms of the |Henoticon.| Pope and emperor hurled at one another charges of heresy and messages of defiance. The turbulent orthodox party at Constantinople was supported in its obstinate resistance to the emperor by the Roman see. The rebellion of Vitalian, characterized by Gibbon as |the first of the religious wars,| whose battle-cry was the council of Chalcedon, was countenanced by Symmachus's still more haughty successor, Hormisdas, who reaped the fruits of the humiliation of the aged Anastasius and became |the dictator of the religion of the world.| The demand of Hormisdas for the public anathematization of the authors and maintainers of the |Henoticon| was indignantly rejected by Anastasius. The conflict only ended with the life of Anastasius, who died worn out by strife at the age of nearly 90 years, a.d.518. His successor, Justin, was an unlettered soldier of unbending orthodoxy. The new patriarch, John of Cappadocia, |a man of servile mind though unmeasured ambition,| was prepared to adopt any course which would secure his power. He had seconded all the measures of Anastasius, but at the demand of the mob he now hastily assembled a synod of 40 bishops, which anathematized all upholders of the |Henoticon,| recalled the banished bishops, and deposed the so-called usurpers. All heretics, i.e. those who refused the council of Chalcedon, were made incapable of civil or military office. Hormisdas profited by the favourable opportunity to press his demands, which were admitted without question. The names of the patriarchs Acacius, Fravitta, Euphemius, and Macedonius, together with those of the emperor Zeno and Anastasius, were erased from the diptychs, and Acacius was branded with a special anathema. Fresh disturbances were created when it was found that Hormisdas demanded the condemnation of all who had communicated with Acacius, and turned a deaf ear to the repeated applications of both emperor and patriarch for some relaxation of these terms (Evagr. H. E. iv.4; Labbe, Concil. iv.1542; Natal. Alexand. Hist. Eccl. t. ii. p.448). Hormisdas at last consented that Epiphanius, John's successor, should act for him in receiving churches into communion. Some honoured names were allowed to remain on the diptychs, and eventually Euphemius, Macedonius, Flavian of Antioch, Elias of Jerusalem and some others who had died during the separation, were admitted to the Roman Calendars (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xvi. p.697; Bolland. Apr.25, p.373).

Thus ended the unhappy schism. The |Henoticon,| without being formally repealed, was allowed to sink into oblivion. The four oecumenical councils, including Chalcedon, were everywhere received, save m Egypt, and one common creed expressed the religious faith of the Christian world. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xlvii.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. vol. xvi. |Acace|; Schröckh, Kirchengesch. vol. xviii.; Migne, Patr. t. lviii.; Evagr. H. E. libb. iii. iv.; Liberat. Breviar.; Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. vi.; Fleury, Hist. eccl. t. vi. vii.; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp.253 ff. (Clarke's trans.); Dorner, Person, div. ii. vol. i. pp.123 ff.; Milman, Hist. of Lat. Christ. vol. i. bk. iii. cc. i. iii.

[E.V.]

Heracles, patriarch of Alexandria
Heraclas, patriarch of Alexandria, a.d.233-249; brother of the martyr Plutarch, one of Origen's converts (Eus. H. E. vi.3). From being a pupil he became an assistant in teaching to Origen, who left the school to him when he retired from Alexandria to Caesarea (ib.15, 26). Heraclas retained the school but a short time, for on the death of Demetrius he was elected to the archiepiscopal throne. Heraclas did not adopt any of his teacher's peculiar views, but voted for his deprivation both from his office as teacher and from his orders and for his excommunication at the two synods held by Demetrius, nor when elected bishop did he attempt to rescind these sentences. Eusebius (ib.31) narrates a visit paid to Heraclas by Africanus the annalist on hearing of his great learning, and (ib. vii.7), on the authority of his successor Dionysius, gives his rule respecting the treatment of heretics. Le Quien, Oriens Christ. ii.392; Phot. Cod.118; Acta SS. Boll. Jul.3.645-647.

[L.D.]

Heracleon, a Gnostic
Heracleon (1), a Gnostic described by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv.9, p.595) as the most esteemed (dokimotatos) of the school of Valentinus; and, according to Origen (Comm. in S. Joann. t. ii. § 8, Opp. t. iv. p.66), said to have been in personal contact (gnorimos) with Valentinus himself. He is barely mentioned by Irenaeus (ii.41) and by Tertullian (adv. Valent.4). The common source of Philaster and Pseudo-Tertullian (i.e. probably the earlier treatise of Hippolytus) contained an article on Heracleon between those on Ptolemaeus and Secundus, and on Marcus and Colarbasus.

The chief interest that now attaches to Heracleon is that he is the earliest commentator on the N.T. of whom we have knowledge. Origen, in the still extant portion of his commentary on St. John, quotes Heracleon nearly 50 times, usually controverting, occasionally accepting his expositions. We thus recover large sections of Heracleon's commentary on cc. i. ii. iv. and viii. of St John. There is reason to think that he wrote commentaries on St. Luke also. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv.9) expressly quotes from Heracleon's exposition of Luke xii.8; and another reference (25 Eclog. ex Script. Proph. p.995) is in connexion with Luke iii.16, 17, and so probably from an exposition of these verses. The fragments of Heracleon were collected by Grabe (Spicileg. ii.85, etc.), and reprinted as an appendix to Massuet's, Stieren's, and Migne's editions of Irenaeus.

The first passage quoted by Clement bears on an accusation brought against some of the Gnostic sects, that they taught that it was no sin to avoid martyrdom by denying the faith. No exception can be taken to what Heracleon says on this subject. |Men mistake in thinking that the only confession is that made with the voice before the magistrates; there is another confession made in the life and conversation, by faith and works corresponding to the faith. The first confession may be made by a hypocrite: and it is one not required of all; there are many who have never been called on to make it, as for instance Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi [Lebbaeus]; the other confession must be made by all. He who has first confessed in his disposition of heart will confess with the voice also when need shall arise and reason require. Well did Christ use concerning confession the phrase 'in Me' (ean homologese en emoi), concerning denial the phrase 'Me.' A man may confess 'Him' with the voice who really denies Him, if he does not confess Him also in action; but those only confess 'in Him' who live in the confession and in corresponding actions. Nay, it is He Whom they embrace and Who dwells in them Who makes confession 'in them'; for 'He cannot deny Himself.' But concerning denial, He did not say whosoever shall deny 'in Me,' but whosoever shall deny 'Me'; for no one that is 'in Him' can deny Him. And the words 'before men' do not mean before unbelievers only, but before Christians and unbelievers alike; before the one by their life and conversation, before the others in words.| In this exposition every word in the sacred text assumes significance; and this characteristic runs equally through the fragments of Heracleon's commentary on St. John, whether the words commented on be our Lord's own. or only those of the Evangelist. Thus he calls attention to the facts that in the statement |all things were made by Him,| the preposition used is dia; that Jesus is said to have gone down to Capernaum and gone up to Jerusalem; that He found the buyers and sellers en to hiero, not en to nao; that He said salvation is of the Jews not in them, and again (iv.40) that our Lord tarried with the Samaritans, not in them; notice is taken of the point in our Lord's discourse with the woman of Samaria, where He first emphasizes His assertion with |Woman, believe Me|; and though Origen occasionally accuses Heracleon of deficient accuracy, for instance in taking the prophet (i.21) as meaning no more than a prophet; |in three days| (ii.19) as meaning no more than |on the third day|; yet on the whole Heracleon's examination of the words is exceedingly minute. He attempts to reconcile differences between the Evangelists, e.g. our Lord's ascription to the Baptist of the titles |Elias| and |prophet| with John's own disclaimer of these titles. He finds mysteries in the numbers in the narrative -- in the 46 years which the temple was in building, the 6 husbands of the woman of Samaria (for such was his reading), the 2 days our Lord abode with the people of the city, the 7th hour at which the nobleman's son was healed. He thinks it necessary to reconcile his own doctrine with that of the sacred writer, even at the cost of some violence of interpretation. Thus he declares that the Evangelist's assertion that all things were made by the Logos must be understood only of the things of the visible creation, his own doctrine being that the higher aeon world was not so made, but that the lower creation was made by the Logos through the instrumentality of the Demiurge. Instances of this kind where the interpreter is forced to reject the most obvious meaning of the text are sufficiently numerous to shew that the gospel was not written in the interests of Valentinianism; but it is a book which Heracleon evidently recognized as of such authority that he must perforce have it on his side.

He strives to find Valentinianism in the Gospel by a method of spiritual interpretation. Thus the nobleman (basilikos, iv.47) is the Demiurge, a petty prince, his kingdom being limited and temporary, the servants are his angels, the son is the man who belongs to the Demiurge. As he finds the psuchikoi represented in the nobleman's son, so again he finds the pneumatikoi in the woman of Samaria. The water of Jacob's well which she rejected is Judaism; the husband whom she is to call is no earthly husband, but her spiritual bridegroom from the Pleroma; the other husbands with whom she previously had committed fornication represent the matter with which the spiritual have been entangled; that she is no longer to worship either in |this mountain| or in |Jerusalem| means that she is not, like the heathen, to worship the visible creation, the Hyle, or kingdom of the devil, nor like the Jews to worship the creator or Demiurge; her watering-pot is her good disposition for receiving life from the Saviour. Though the results of Heracleon's method are heretical, the method itself is one commonly used by orthodox Fathers, especially by Origen. Many orthodox parallels to Heracleon's exposition could be adduced, e.g. that the cords with which our Lord drove the traffickers from the temple represent the power of the Holy Spirit; the wood to which He assumes they were attached, the wood of the cross. Origen even occasionally blames Heracleon for being too easily content with more obvious interpretations. Heracleon at first is satisfied to take |whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to loose| as meaning no more than |for whom I am not worthy to perform menial offices,| and he has Origen's approbation when he tries, however unsuccessfully, to investigate what the shoe represented. It does not appear that Heracleon used his method of interpretation controversially to establish Valentinian doctrine, but, being a Valentinian, readily found those doctrines indicated in the passages on which he commented.

One other of his interpretations deserves mention. The meaning which the Greek of John viii.44 most naturally conveys is that of the pre-Hieronymian translation |mendax est sicut et pater ejus,| and so it is generally understood by Greek Fathers, though in various ways they escape attributing a father to the devil. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar consider that the Evangelist shews that he embraced the opinion of the Valentinians and some earlier Gnostic sects that the father of the devil was the Demiurge or God of the Jews. But this idea was unknown to Heracleon, who here interprets the father of the devil as his essentially evil nature; to which Origen objects that if the devil be evil by the necessity of his nature, he ought rather to be pitied than blamed.

To judge from the fragments we have, Heracleon's bent was rather practical than speculative. He says nothing of the Gnostic theories as to stages in the origin of the universe; the prologue of St. John does not tempt him into mention of the Valentinian Aeonology. In fact he does not use the word aeon in the sense employed by other Valentinian writers, but rather where according to their use we should expect the word Pleroma; and this last word he uses in a special sense, describing the spiritual husband of the Samaritan woman as her Pleroma -- that is, the complement which supplies what was lacking to perfection. We find in his system only two beings unknown to orthodox theology, the Demiurge, and apparently a second Son of Man; for on John iv.37 he distinguishes a higher Son of Man who sows from the Saviour Who reaps. Heracleon gives as great prominence as any orthodox writer to Christ and His redeeming work. But all mankind are not alike in a condition to profit by His redemption. There is a threefold order of creatures: First, the Hylic or material, formed of the hule, which is the substance of the devil, incapable of immortality. Secondly, the psychic or animal belonging to the kingdom of the Demiurge; their psuche is naturally mortal, but capable of being clothed with immortality, and it depends on their disposition (thesis) whether they become sons of God or children of the devil; and, thirdly, the pneumatic or spiritual, who are by nature of the divine essence, though entangled with matter and needing redemption to be delivered from it. These are the special creation of the Logos; they live in Him, and become one with Him. In the second class Heracleon seems to have had the Jews specially in mind and to have regarded them with a good deal of tenderness. They are the children of Abraham who, if they do not love God, at least do not hate Him. Their king, the Demiurge, is represented as not hostile to the Supreme, and though shortsighted and ignorant, yet as well disposed to faith and ready to implore the Saviour's help for his subjects whom he had not himself been able to deliver. When his ignorance is removed, he and his redeemed subjects will enjoy immortality in a place raised above the material world.

Besides the passages on which he comments Heracleon refers to Gen. vi.; Isa. i.2; Matt. viii.2, ix.37; xviii.11; Rom. i.25, xii.1; I. Cor. xv.54; II. Tim. ii.13. Neander and Cave have suggested Alexandria as the place where Heracleon taught; but Clement's language suggests some distance either of time or of place; for he would scarcely have thought it necessary to explain that Heracleon was the most in repute of the Valentinians if he were at the time the head of a rival school in the same city. Hippolytus makes Heracleon one of the Italian school of Valentinians; but the silence of all the authorities makes it unlikely that he taught at Rome. It seems, therefore, most likely that he taught in one of the cities of S. Italy; or |Praedestinatus| may be right in making Sicily the scene of his inventions about Heracleon.

The date of Heracleon is of interest on account of his use of St. John's Gospel, which clearly had attained high authority when he wrote. The mere fact, however, that a book was held in equal honour by the Valentinians and the orthodox seems to prove that it must have attained its position before the separation of the Valentinians from the church; and, if so, it is of less importance to determine the exact date of Heracleon. The decade 170-180 may probably be fixed for the centre of his activity. This would not be inconsistent with his having been personally instructed by Valentinus, who continued to teach as late as 160, and would allow time for Heracleon to have gained celebrity before Clement wrote, one of whose references to Heracleon is in what was probably one of his earliest works. He had evidently long passed from the scene when Origen wrote. (Neander, Gen. Entwick.143, and Ch. Hist. ii.135; Heinrici, Val. Gnosis, 127; Westcott, N. T. Canon.299.) The Gk. text of The Fragments of Heracleon has been ed. with intro. and notes by A. E. Brooke (Camb. Univ. Press).

[G.S.]

Heraclides Cyprius, bp. of Ephesus
Heraclides (5) Cyprius, bp. of Ephesus; a native of Cyprus, who had received a liberal education, was versed in the Scriptures, and had passed some years in ascetic training in the desert of Scetis under Evagrius. He then became deacon to Chrysostom, and was in immediate attendance on him. On the deprivation of Antoninus, bp. of Ephesus, a.d.401, there being a deadlock in the election through the number of rival candidates and the violence of the opposing factions, Chrysostom brought Heraclides forward, and he was elected by the votes of seventy bishops to the vacant see. The election at first only increased the disturbance, and loud complaints were made of the unfitness of Heraclides for the office, which detained Chrysostom in Asia (Socr. H. E. vi. ii; Soz. H. E. viii.6; Pallad. p.139). At the assembling of the synod of the Oak, a.d.403, Heraclides was summoned to answer certain specified charges brought against him by Macarius, bp. of Magnesia, a bishop named Isaac, and a monk named John Among these charges was one of holding Origenizing views. The urgency with which the condemnation of Chrysostom was pressed forward retarded the suit against Heraclides which had come to no issue when his great master was deposed and banished. After Chrysostom's second and final exile in 404, Heraclides was his fellow-sufferer. He was deposed by the party in power, and put in prison at Nicomedia, where, when Palladius wrote, he had been already languishing for years. A eunuch who, according to Palladius, was stained with the grossest vices, was consecrated bp. of Ephesus in his room (Pallad. Dial. ed. Bigot. p.139). On the ascription to this Heraclides of the Lausiac History of Palladius, under the name of Paradisus Heraclidis, see PALLADIUS (7); also Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. x.117; Ceillier, vii.487.

[E.V.]

Hermas, known as the Shepherd
Hermas (2). In the latter half of the 2nd cent. there was in circulation a book of visions and allegories, purporting to be written by one Hermas and commonly known as The Shepherd. This book was treated with respect bordering on that paid to the canonical Scriptures of N.T., and was publicly read in some churches. A passage from it is quoted by Irenaeus (iv.20, p.253) with the words, |Well said the Scripture,| a fact which Eusebius notes (H. E. v.8). Probably n the time of Irenaeus the work was publicly read in the Gallican churches. The mutilated commencement of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria opens in the middle of a quotation from The Shepherd, and about ten times elsewhere he cites the book, always with a complete acceptance of the reality and divine character of the revelations made to Hermas, but without suggesting who Hermas was or when he lived. Origen, who frequently cites the book (in Rom. xvi.14, vol. iv. p.683), considered it divinely inspired. He suggests, as do others after him, but apparently on no earlier authority, that it was written by the Hermas mentioned in Rom. xvi.14. His other quotations shew that less favourable views of the book were current in his time. They are carefully separated from quotations from the canonical books, and he generally adds a saving clause, giving the reader permission to reject them; he speaks of it (in Matt. xix.7, vol. iii. p.644) as a book current in the church but not acknowledged by all, and (de Princ. iv.11) as despised by some. Eusebius (iii.25) places the book among the orthodox notha with the Acts of Paul, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, etc. Elsewhere (iii.3), while unable to place it among the homologoumena because rejected by some, he records its public use in churches and by some most eminent writers, and that it was judged by some most necessary for elementary instruction in the faith. Athanasius (Ep. Fest.39, vol. i. pt. ii. p.963) classes it with some of the deutero-canonical books of O.T. and with The Teaching of the Apostles as not canonical, but useful for catechetical instruction. It is found in the Sinaitic MS. following the Ep. of Barnabas, as an appendix to the N.T. After the 4th cent. it rapidly passed out of ecclesiastical use in the East.

The Western tradition deserves more attention, as internal evidence shews the book to have been composed at Rome. The MURATORIAN FRAGMENT on the Canon tells us that it had been written during the episcopate of Pius by his brother Hernias, a period which the writer speaks of as within then living memory. He concludes that the book ought to be read but not publicly in the church among the prophetic writings, the number of which was complete, nor among the apostolic. The statement that the book not only might but ought to be read is a high recognition of the value attributed to it by the writer, and we gather that at least in some places its use in church was then such as to lead some to regard it as on a level with the canonical Scriptures. Tertullian, in one of his earliest treatises, de Oratione, has a reference to its influence on the practice of churches which shews it to have enjoyed high authority at the time, an authority which Tertullian's argument does not dispute. It had probably been used in church reading and translated into Latin, since Tertullian describes it by the Latin title Pastor, and not by a Greek title, as he usually does in the case of Greek writings. Some ten years later, after Tertullian had become a Montanist, and the authority of The Shepherd is urged in behalf of readmitting adulterers to communion, he rejects the book as not counted worthy of inclusion in the canon, but placed by every council, even those of the Catholic party, among false and apocryphal writings (de Pudic. c.10). Quoting Hebrews, he says that this is at least more received than that apocryphal Shepherd of the adulterers (c.20). The phrase |more received| warns us to take cum grano Tertullian's assertion as to the universal rejection of The Shepherd; but doubtless the distinction between apostolic and later writings was then drawn more sharply, and in the interval between Tertullian's two writings The Shepherd may have been excluded from public reading in many churches which before had admitted it. The Liberian papal catalogue (probably here, as elsewhere, following the catalogue of Hippolytus) states that under the episcopate of Pius his brother Ermas wrote a book in which the commands and precepts were contained which the angel gave him when he came to him in the habit of a shepherd. Yet, while refusing to assign the book to apostolic times, it makes no doubt of the reality of the angelic appearance to Hermas. Later biographical notices of popes state that the message given to Hermas was that Easter should always be celebrated on a Sunday. These clearly shew that by then all knowledge of the book had been lost; and further notices shew a confusion between the name of Hermas and that of his book, which imply that the book was no longer in use. Jerome, when quoting Eusebius about the book (de Vir. Ill.10, vol. ii.845), adds that among the Latins it was almost unknown. He speaks contemptuously of it (in Habac. i.14, vol. vi.604), for it seems certain that the book of Hermas is here referred to. It is marked in the Gelasian decree as apocryphal. Notwithstanding, there;are indications that some use of the book continued in the West, e.g. the fact being that there still exist some 20 MSS. of the Latin version. In the African church of the 4th cent. we find f rom the list in the Codex Claromontanus (Westcott, Canon N. T. p.557) that it was placed with the Acts of Paul and the Revelation of St. Peter as an appendix to the N.T. books; and it occupies a similar place in the Sinaitic MS., the only Greek Bible known to have contained it. But in some existing Latin MSS. it is placed with the apocryphal books of O.T.

The book is in three parts. The first part consists of visions. Hermas tells that he who had brought him up had sold him to Rome to a lady named Rhoda; that after a considerable time he renewed his acquaintance with her and began to love her as a sister; that he saw her one day bathing in the Tiber and assisted her out of the water ; that admiring her beauty he thought how happy he should be if he had a wife like her in person and disposition. Further than this his thought did not go. But a little time after he had a vision. He fell asleep, and in his dream was walking and struggling on ground so rugged and broken that it was impossible to pass. At length he succeeded in crossing the water by which his path had been washed away, and coming into smooth ground knelt to confess his sins to God. Then the heavens were opened and he saw Rhoda saluting him from the sky. On his asking her what she did there, she told him that she had been taken up to accuse him, because God was angry with him for having sinned in thought against her. Then Hermas was overwhelmed with horror and fear, not knowing how he could abide the severity of God's judgment, if such a thought as his was marked as sin. Rhoda now passes out of his dream and he sees a venerable aged lady clad in shining garments sitting on a great white chair and holding a book in her hand. She asks why he, usually so cheerful, is now so sad. On telling her, she owns what a sin any impure thought would be in one so chaste, so singleminded and so innocent as he; but tells him that this is not why God is displeased with him, but because of the sins of his children, whom he, through false indulgence, had allowed to corrupt themselves, but to whom repentance was open if he would warn them. Then she reads to him out of her book, but of all she reads he can remember nothing save the last comforting sentence, and that all which preceded was terrible and threatening. She parted from him with the words, |Play the man, Hermas.| Hermas was an elderly man with a grown-up family, and Rhoda must have been at least as old as himself. If the tale is an invented one, this is certainly an incongruity; but if it be a true story, it is quite conceivable that the thought may have occurred to Hermas, who seems to have been not happy in his family relations, how much happier it would have been for him if Rhoda had been his wife; and that afterwards, in a dream, this thought may have recurred to his memory as a sin to be repented of. The vision presents all the characteristics of a real dream; the want of logical connexion between the parts, the changes of scene, the fading out of Rhoda as principal figure and the appearance of the aged lady in her room; the substitution of quite a different offence for the sinful thought which weighed on his conscience at the beginning; the physical distress in his sleep at first presenting the idea of walking on and on without being able to find an outlet, afterwards of mental grief at words spoken to him; the long reading of which only the words spoken immediately before awaking are remembered, -- all these indicate that we are reading not a literary invention like the dream of the Pilgrim's Progress, but the recital, a little dressed up it may be, of a dream which the narrator really had. In another vision, a year after, he saw again the lady and her book, and received the book to copy, but still it conveyed no idea to his mind. He then set himself by fasting and prayer to learn its meaning, and after about a fortnight was gratified. He learns, too, that the lady is not, as he had imagined, the sibyl, but the church, and that she appeared as old because she was created first of all, and for her sake the world was made. Ephesians, which probably suggested this doctrine of the pre-existence of the church, is one of the N.T. books of whose use by Hermas there are clear traces. In subsequent visions we have a different account of the matter; he sees in each a woman more and more youthful in appearance, whom he is taught to identify with the church of his former vision; and it is explained that he saw her old at first because the spirit of Christians had been broken by infirmity and doubt, and afterwards more youthful as by the revelations made him their spirit had been renewed. After his first two visions Hermas watched eagerly for new revelations, and set himself to obtain them by fasting and prayer. In those later visions, while the pictures presented to his mind are such as we can well believe to have been dream representations, the explanations given of them have a coherence only to be found in the thoughts of a waking man. This is still more true of the second and third parts of the work. At the end of the first part he has the vision in which he sees a man dressed like a shepherd, who tells him that he is the angel of repentance and the guardian to whose care he had been entrusted. >From this shepherd he receives, for his instruction and that of the church, the |Commandments,| which form the second, and the |Similitudes,| which form the third part of the work. The Similitudes were probably suggested by N.T. parables, though the frigid compositions of Hermas fall infinitely below these.

The literary merits of the work of Herman are of little importance compared with the fundamental question as to the date of the book and whether it claims to be an inspired document, the writer of which aspires to no literary merit, save that of faithfully recording the revelations made him. Are we to suppose that Hernias in relating his visions intended no more than to present edifying lessons in an allegorical form, and that it was merely as an instructive fiction that the book was regarded when it was introduced into public reading in the church? Donaldson says: |If the book be not inspired, then either the writer fancied he had seen these visions, or tried to make other people fancy this, or he clothed the work in a fictitious form designedly and undisguisedly. If he did the first, he must have been silly. If he did the second he must have been an impostor.| But as he believes the author to have been |an honest upright, and thoughtful man,| he concludes that he did the third, |as multitudes of others have done after him, with John Bunyan at their head.| If we took this view we could lay no stress on anything the author tells us about himself and his family. These details might be fictitious, as the angels, the towers, and the beasts of the visions. We could not even assume that his name was Hermas for the narrator of the visions, who bears this name, might be an imaginary personage But we ourselves feel bound to reject this as altogether mistaken criticism, and as an application to the 2nd cent. of the standards of to-day. To us it seems plain that, whatever the author intended, the first readers of Hermas did not receive the book as mere allegorical fiction. Bunsen (Hippolytus and his Age, i.315) tells us that Niebuhr used to pity the Athenian (sic, Qu. Roman?) Christians for being obliged to listen to this |good but dull novel.| If the authorities of the church regarded it merely as a novel, would they have appointed it for public reading? At the end of the century Clement and others shew no doubt of the reality of the visions Were the men of a couple of generations earlier likely to have been more severe in their judgments, and would an angelic appearance seem to them so incredible that one who related it would be regarded as the narrator of a fiction that he did not intend to be believed? The book itself contains directions to the rulers of the Roman church to send the volume to foreign churches. If we suppose it really was sent to them stamped as a prophetic writing by the authority of the Roman church, we have an explanation of the consideration, only second to that of the canonical Scriptures, which it enjoyed in so many distant churches. A man at the present day might publish a story of visions, and be persuaded that his readers would not take him seriously, but no one in the 2nd cent. would be entitled to hold such a persuasion, and if the book of Hermas was accepted as inspired, the writer cannot be acquitted of the responsibility of having foreseen and intended this result. Mosheim, de Rebus Christ. ante Const.163, 166, holds that the writer must either have been |mente captus et fanaticus,| or else |scientem volentemque fefellisse,| the latter being the opinion to which he inclines, believing that the lawfulness of pious frauds was a fixed opinion with many Christians at the date of the composition we are discussing We maintain, however, that it is possible to disbelieve in the inspiration of Hermas without imputing folly either to him who made the claim or to those who admitted it We must not regard the men of the 2nd cent. as fools because their views as to God's manner of teaching His church were different from those which the experience of so many following centuries has taught us. A Christian cannot regard them as fools for believing that in the time of our Lord and His apostles a great manifestation of the supernatural was made to the world. How long and to what extent similar manifestations would present themselves in. the ordinary life of the church only experience could skew, and they are not to be scorned if their expectations have not been borne out by later experience. In particular, if we are to set down as fools all who have believed that supernatural intimations may be given in dreams, our list would be a long one, and would include many eminent names; and though modern science may regard visions as phenomena admitting a natural explanation, it is not reasonable to expect such a view from the science of the 2nd cent. What Hermas tells of his personal history and of the times and circumstances of his visions conveys to us the impression of artless truth. His information about himself is contained in incidental allusions, not very easy to piece together; and the author of a fictitious narrative would not have conveyed so obscurely what he tells about his hero. He would probably also have made him a man of some eminence, holding high church office, whereas Hermas always speaks of the presbyters as if he were not one of them, and could have no motive for making his hero one engaged in trade unsuccessfully and not very honestly, and an elderly man with a termagant wife and ill brought-up children. On the other hand, if the book be true history, it is very much to the point that Hermas should get a revelation, directing his wife to keep her tongue in better order, and his children to pay more respect to their parents; nor need we suppose Hermas guilty of dishonesty in thus turning his gift of prophecy to the advantage of his family comfort; for nothing can be more natural than that the thoughts which troubled his waking moments should present themselves in his visions. There is nothing incredible in the supposition that the pictures of the first vision did present themselves to the mind of Hernias as he relates them. They must have been very vivid, and have impressed him strongly. Still, it is a year before he has another vision. After this he begins to fast and pray and look out eagerly for more revelations. Finally he comes to believe himself to be under the constant guardianship of the shepherd angel of repentance, and he ascribes all the lessons he desires to teach to the inspiration of this heavenly monitor. But perhaps his language expresses no more than his belief in the divine inspiration under which he wrote, for elsewhere he states that he does not regard the personages of his visions as having objective reality, and those things which in the earlier part are represented as spoken to him by the church are afterwards said to have been spoken by God's Spirit under the form of the church. That be sincerely believed himself to be the bearer of a divine message appears to be the case. A summary of his convictions would serve also for those of a man in many respects very unlike, Savonarola (a) that the church of his time had corrupted itself, and had become deeply tainted with worldliness; (b) that a time of great tribulation was at hand, in which the dross should be purged away; (c) that there was still an intervening time, during which repentance was possible and would be accepted; (d) that he was himself divinely commissioned to preach that repentance.

Date and Authorship. -- Antiquity furnishes authority for three suppositions: (a) the author was the Hermas to whom a salutation is sent in Rom. xvi.14; or (b) brother to Pius, bp. of Rome at the middle of the 2nd cent.; or (c) contemporary with Clement who was bishop at the very beginning of that century or the end of the preceding. The first may be set aside as a highly improbable guess of Origen. The author shews no wish to be taken for the apostolic Hermas, but distinctly speaks of the apostles as all dead. A forger could have found many more suitable names than Hermas, one of the least prominent in N.T., and of which, except in connexion with this book, there is no trace in ecclesiastical tradition. If our view of the book be correct, the author had no motive for antedating it. His prophecy announced tribulation close at hand and only a short intervening period for repentance. To represent such a prophecy as being already 50 or 100 years old would be to represent it as having failed, and in fact The Shepherd did lose credit when it had been so long in existence. Hermas seems to have thought that, if the worldliness of the church could be repented of and reformed, it would be possible to keep it pure during the brief remainder of its existence. He announced therefore forgiveness on repentance for sins of old Christians prior to the date of his revelation, but none for those of new converts, or for sins subsequent to his revelation. To date his revelation 50 years back would have defeated his own purpose and made his message inapplicable to those whom he addressed. Again the acceptance of the book by the church of Rome is inexplicable if it were introduced by no known person, containing, as it does, revelations purporting to have been given among themselves and to a leading member of their church. If the first readers of the work of Elchesai or of the Clementine homilies asked, Why did we never hear of these things before? these books had provided an answer in the fiction that the alleged authors had only communicated them under a pledge of strict secrecy; in this book, on the contrary, Hermas is directed (Vis. iii.8) to go after three days and speak in the hearing of all the saints the words he had heard in his vision. Elsewhere he enables us to understand how this direction could be carried out. We learn (Mand.11) that certain persons were then recognized in the church as having prophetic gifts, and that at the Christian meetings for worship, if after prayer ended one of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, he might speak unto the people as the Lord willed. The simplest explanation how the Roman Church came to believe in its inspiration seems, then, to be that it had previously admitted the inspiration of its author, that he held the position of a recognized prophet as in the East did Quadratus and Ammia of Philadelphia (Eus. H. E. v.16), and that he really did publicly deliver his message in the church assembly. As the 2nd cent. went on, the public exercise of prophetic powers in the church seems to have ceased, and when revived by Montanus and his followers had to encounter much opposition. The ensuing controversy led the church to insist more strongly on the distinction between the inspiration of the canonical writers and that of holy men of later times, and the Muratorian fragment exhibits the feeling entertained towards the end of the cent. that the list of prophetic writings had been closed and that no production of the later years of the church could be admitted.

But if, as we think, the Hermas of The Shepherd is not a fictitious character, but a real person known in the church of Rome in the 2nd cent., we incline to follow Zahn in relying more on his connexion with Clement than with Pius. Zahn places The Shepherd c.97; but if we assign that date to the epistle of Clement we ought to allow a few years for that letter to have obtained the celebrity and success which the notice in Hermas implies. That notice need not necessarily have been published in the lifetime of Clement, for Hermas is not instructed to deliver his message immediately, but only after the completion of his revelations, and this may have been after Clement's death.

Are, then, any indications of date in the book inconsistent with such an early date?

There is much affinity between the leading ideas of Montanism and of the book of Hermas, especially as to the fall of many in the church from the ideal of holiness. The question was asked, Was it possible to renew such again to repentance? In both our Lord's second coming was eagerly looked forward to, and a knowledge of God's coming dealings with His church sought for from visions and revelations. But the teaching of Hermas is less rigorous than the Montanistic, and all that is special to Montanism is unknown to him.

Hermas directs his efforts almost exclusively to combating the relaxation of morality in the church; he scarcely notices doctrinal errors, and no reference to Gnostic doctrines can be found in his book, unless it be a statement (Sim. v.7) that there were some who took licence to misuse the flesh on account of a denial of the resurrection of the body. But these false teachers seem to have been all in the church, not separate from it. In the passage which seems most distinctly to refer to Gnostics (ib. ix.22), they are described as |wishing to know everything and knowing nothing,| as |praising themselves that they have understanding, and wishing to be teachers, though they were really fools.| Yet, he adds, |to these repentance is open, for they were not wicked, but rather silly and without understanding.| The seeds of Gnosticism had begun to spring up even in apostolic times; but we cannot think that Hermas would have written thus after Gnosticism had become dangerous to the Roman church.

Hermas rebukes the strifes for precedence among Christians (Vis. iii.9; Mand. ix.; Sim. viii.7), and it is difficult to find in his book evidence of the existence of the episcopal form of government or of resistance to its introduction. He appears to use episkopos as synonymous with presbuteros and always speaks of the government of the church as in the hands of the elders, without hinting that one elder enjoyed authority over others. Clement, indeed, is recognized as the organ by which the church of Rome communicated with foreign churches; but we are not told that implied a pre-eminence in domestic rule. Similarly, though we infer that the presbyters had seats of honour in the church assemblies, we are not told that one had a seat higher than the rest. Either it was not the case or it was too much a matter of course to be mentioned. But a message regarding dissensions is sent tois proegoumenois tes ekklesias kai tois
protokathedritais. It is a very forced explanation of the last plural noun to suppose it means some one of the proegoumenoi who desired to make himself the first, nor have we reason to think that the word implies any sarcasm. It is more natural to understand that besides the presbyters there were others, such as the teachers and prophets (Mand. xi.), who in church assemblies were given seats of honour.

The church had at the time of this writing enjoyed a good deal of quiet, but this had evidently been broken by many harassing persecutions, in which some had apostatized. Usually their danger is described as no more than of loss of goods and of injury to worldly business; but there had been (though perhaps not recently) martyrs who had given their lives and endured crosses and wild beasts for the Name of the Son of God. They could have saved themselves by denial or by committing idolatry. Thus they suffered as Christians, and it has been inferred that the date must be later than the well-known letter of Trajan to Pliny which first made the profession of Christianity unlawful. Yet it seems possible to assign an earlier date to The Shepherd, and to I. Peter which is affected by the same argument, when we remember that Trajan only gave imperial sanction to the rule on which Pliny had been acting already, and on which others had probably been acting previously; or Pliny implies that trials of Christians were then well known. And it may be argued that after the edict of Trajan obstinate profession of Christianity was liable to be punished with death, whereas in the time of Hermas it seems to have been punished only by fine or imprisonment. Hermas lost his business in the persecution, having been betrayed, it seems, by his children. At the time of the visions he was apparently farming. Zahn, who places the persecution under Domitian, ingeniously conjectures (p.133) that Hermas was one of those to whom, as Dion Cassius tells (68, 2), Nerva made restitution by giving land instead of the goods of which they had been despoiled by Domitian.

It is disappointing to have to add that an ordinary Christian of to-day would find in the book neither much interest nor edification, and that the historical student finds in it much less help than he might expect. Hermas is absorbed in trying to bring about a practical reform; he shews much less interest in doctrine, in which possibly as a layman he was perhaps not accurately instructed; he never quotes either O. or N. T., nor is his language much influenced by Scripture phraseology, and some would describe him as having preached not the Gospel, but merely a dry morality. The inference was natural, if Pauline Christianity is so much in the background in Hermas, that he must have been an anti-Pauline Jewish Christian; and this may seem confirmed by the fact that the N.T. book which has most stamped itself on his mind is the Ep. of St. James. Yet a closer examination finds no real trace of Judaism in him. It is scarcely credible that one brought up a Jew should seem so unfamiliar with O.T. The Jewish nation and its privileges are not even mentioned, nor the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Michael is not the guardian angel of the nation, but of the Christian church.

The only express quotation is from the lost apocryphal book of Eldad and Modad. His use of either O. or N. T, not being indicated by formal quotation, but only by coincidences of language or thought, there is room for difference of opinion as to his use of particular books. The proofs of the use of the Epp. of James and of Ephesians seem decisive, and only a little less strong in the case of I. Peter and I. Cor. Of his use of the Gospel and Revelation of St. John we are persuaded, though we admit that the evidence is not conclusive. We believe also that the knowledge of sayings of our Lord which Hermas unmistakably exhibits was obtained from our Synoptic Gospels, the coincidences with St. Mark (see Zahn, p.457) being most striking.

Where Hermas had lived before he was sold to Rome we can only conjecture. According to a reading which there seems no good ground to question, he supposes himself in one of his visions to have been transported to Arcadia, and Mahaffy says (Rambles in Greece, p.330, 2nd ed.) that the scenery he describes suits that in Arcadia, and does not suit the neighbourhood of Rome. Zahn conjectures that Hermas was born in Egypt because the architecture of the tower of Hermas's visions resembles the description in Josephus of the Jewish temple in the Egyptian Heliopolis.

The Shepherd has been edited by Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec.1866) and Gebhardt and Harnack (Patres Apostolici, 1877). The latter ed. is indispensable, and contains a full list of editions, and of works treating of Hermas. Some interesting discussion is to be found in the reviews of Gebhardt's ed. by Overbeck (Schurer, Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1878), Donaldson in Theological Review (1878), and Zahn, Göttingen gelehrte Anzeigen (1878). Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868), is the work from which we have learned most. Another ed. is by Funk (Pat. Apost. Tübingen, 1878). A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd with intro. by Dr. Lambros, trans. and ed. with preface and appendices by Dr. J. A. Robinson, has been pub. by Camb. Univ. Press; a cheap Eng. trans. of The Shepherd by Dr. C. Taylor (2 vols.) by S. P.C. K.; and in Ante-Nic. Fathers, vol. ii. See also F. Spitta, Zur Gesch. und Lit. der Urchristenthums, vol. ii. (Göttingen, 1898), and Funk, in Theol. Quartalschr. lxxii. and lxxxv.

[G.S.]

Hermenigild, a saint
Hermenigild (Ermenigild), St., Visigoth Catholic prince in Spain, son of the Arian king Leovigild. Hermenigild and Reccared were sons of Leovigild's first wife (Joh. Bicl. apud Esp. Sagr. vi.378), who was dead in 569. The dates of their births are unknown (? 560-562), but Hermenigild was the elder. In 573 both sons were made |consortes regni| (ib.). Most probably between 573 and 575 (cf. Greg. Tur. iv.38) Hermenigild was betrothed to the Catholic Frankish princess Ingunthis, the daughter of Sigibert of Rheims. In 579 (Joh. Bicl. l.c.381) Ingunthis, then 12 years old, reached Spain, and, owing to dissensions between her and her Arian grandmother, Leovigild sent the newly married pair to a distance, assigning to Hermenigild the government of Baetica, or part of it, with Seville for a capital (ib.). Here later in 579 (cf. Görres, Kritische Untersuch. über den Aufstand und das Martyrium des Westgoth. Königsohnes Hermenigild, in Zeitschrift für Hist Theol.1873, i. n.83; Dahn, Kön. der Germ. v.137, gives 580 as the year) Hermenigild renounced Arianism, was confirmed in the Catholic faith by Leander the Catholic metropolitan of Seville, and took the name of Joannes (Greg. Tur. v.39; Greg. Magn. Dial. iii.31; Paul. Diac. iii.21). This was immediately followed by the rebellion of Hermenigild (Joh. Bicl. l.c.), who shortly afterwards formed a close alliance with the Byzantines in the south, and with the recently catholicized Suevi in the north, i.e. with the two most formidable enemies of his father's state and power (cf. Dahn, v.138). Thus the struggle shaped itself as a conflict of confessions and nationalities, of Arianism and Catholicism, of Goth and Roman, although Leovigild had adherents among the provincials, and Hermenigild counted some Gothic partisans (ib.140).

It was not till the end of 582 that Leovigild felt himself strong enough to attack his son. Seville fell in 584 (Joh. Bicl. l.c.383), and shortly afterwards Hermenigild was captured in or near Cordova (ib.; Greg. Tur. v.39, vi.43), deprived of the government of Baetica, and exiled to Valencia. In 585 Hermenigild was put to death (Joh. Bicl.384). Isidore does not mention her death at all. Gregory of Tours mentions it in passing (Hist. Fr. viii.28). Upon the account given by Gregory the Great alone (Dial. iii.31) rests the claim of Hermenigild to be considered not as a rebel suffering the penalty of a political crime, but as a martyr for the Catholic faith. According to the pope, Hermenigild, after a painful imprisonment, was beheaded on the night of Easter Sunday, by his father's apparitores, because he had refused to receive the sacrament from the hands of an Arian bishop. After the execution, miracles were not wanting to substantiate his claim to veneration. In his grave, according to Gregory, were laid the foundations of Visigothic Catholicism; for, after Leovigild's death, his son Reccared was converted by Leander and led the whole people of the Visigoths to the true faith.

[M.A.W.]

Hermes (1) Trismegistus, writings of unknown authorship Hermes (1) Trismegistus. Under this title we have a variety of writings of uncertain date and unknown authorship originating in Egypt. The name |Hermes Trismegistus| never belonged to any single writer. Jamblichus, at the beginning of his treatise de Mysteries, tells us that |Hermes, who presides over speech, is, according to ancient tradition, common to all priests; he it is who exists in all of them. That is why our ancestors attributed all discoveries to him, and issued their works under the name of Hermes.| There was, in fact, a long-continued series of books called |hermetic,| extending over several centuries. Tertullian, however (cont. Valent. c.15), speaks of Hermes Trismegistus as a master in philosophy; and the extant hermetic books have, whatever their date, philosophical and spiritual relations of a very interesting kind. They belong, as is now generally agreed, to the neo-Platonic school; and gather up in a synthesis, the artificiality of which is not at first sight apparent, large elements of all the different factors of religious belief in the Roman world or the 2nd and 3rd cents. The two principal are the Poimandres (the |Shepherd of Men|), and the Logos teleios (or |Discourse of Initiation|), otherwise called |Asclepius.| These two works, together with a variety of fragments, have been translated into French by M. Louis Ménard (Paris, 1867), and accompanied with a preliminary essay of much interest on the hermetic writings and their affinities generally. His most important fragments are from a work entitled Kore kosmou (the |Virgin of the World|), a dialogue between Isis and her son Horus on the origin of nature and of animated beings, including man. Other less noticeable works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus are named in D. of G. and R. Biogr. (s.v.).

It is not to be assumed that these, the Poimandres, and Logos teleios, are by the same author; but from their great similarity of tone and thought, this is possible. Both works are quoted by Lactantius (who ascribed to them the fabulous antiquity and high authority which the early Fathers were wont to attribute to the Sibylline books); and must have been written before c.330, when Lactantius died. The historical allusions in the Asclepius distinctly point to a time when heathenism was about to perish before the increasing power of Christianity. Hence both these works were probably written towards the close of the 3rd cent.

Three motives are discernible in them. First, the endeavour to take an intellectual survey of the whole spiritual universe, without marking any points where the understanding of man fails and has to retire unsatisfied; this is a disposition which, under different forms and at different times, has been called Pantheism or Gnosticism (though the Gnostic idea of an evil element in creation nowhere appears in these treatises). The ideas of the author are presented with a gorgeous material imagery; and, speaking generally, he regards the material world as interpenetrated by the spiritual, and almost identified with it. The power and divine character which he attributes to the sun and other heavenly bodies are peculiarly Egyptian, though this also brings him into affinity with Stoic, and even with Platonic, views. Secondly, this Pantheism or Gnosticism is modified by moral and religious elements which certainly some degree be paralleled in Plato, but to which it is difficult to avoid ascribing a Jewish and even a Christian origin. Great stress is laid on the unity, the creative power, the fatherhood and goodness of God. The argument from design also appears (Poemander, c.5). Even the well-known terms of baptism and regeneration occur, though in different connexions, and the former in a metaphorical sense. One of the chapters of the Poemander is entitled |The Secret Sermon on the Mountain.| The future punishments for wrongdoing are described with emphasis, but there is no moral teaching in detail. Thirdly, these intellectual and religious elements are associated with a passionate and vigorous defence of the heathen religion, including idol worship, and a prophecy of the evils which will come on the earth from the loss of piety. They are thus the only extant lamentation of expiring heathenism, and one that is not without pathos. But for the most part the style is hierophantic, pretentious, and diffuse. See further Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. i. pp.46-94; Baumgarten Crusius, de Lib. Hermeticorum Origine atque Indole (Jena, 1827); and Chambers, The Theol. and Philos. Works of Her. Tris. (Edin.1882).

[J.R.M.]

Hermias (5), a Christian philosopher
Hermias (5), a Christian philosopher, author of the Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum, annexed in all Bibliothecae Patrum to the works of Athenagoras (Migne, Patr. Gk. vi.1167). It was published in Greek and Latin at Basle in 1553. It consists of satirical reflections on the opinions of the philosophers, shewing how Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Epicurus, etc. agree only in repelling and refuting one another. Who the author was seems to have baffled all inquiries. Some identify him with Hermias Sozomen the ecclesiastical historian. Even the martyr of May 31 has been suggested (Ceillier, vi.332). Cave (i.81) attributes the work to the 2nd cent. As it was plainly written when heathenism was triumphant, Ceillier (u.s.) places it under Julian. Neander (H. E. ii.429, ed. Bohn) regards Hermias as |one of those bitter enemies of the Greek philosophy whom Clement of Alexandria thought it necessary to censure, and who, following the idle Jewish legend, pretended that the Greek philosophy had been derived from fallen angels. In the title of his book he is called the philosopher; perhaps he wore the philosopher's mantle before his conversion, and after it passed at once from an enthusiastic admiration of the Greek pilosophy to extreme abhorrence of it| (Du Pin H. E. t. i. p.69, ed.1723). The latest ed. is by H. Diels, in Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879).

[G.T.S.]

Hermogenes (1), teacher of heretical doctrine
Hermogenes (1), a teacher of heretical doctrine towards the close of 2nd cent., the chief error ascribed to him being the doctrine that God had formed the world, not out of nothing, but out of previously existing uncreated matter. Tertullian wrote two tracts in answer, one of which is extant, and is our chief source of information about Hermogenes. The minuteness with which his arguments are answered indicates that Tertullian is replying to a published work of Hermogenes, apparently written in Latin. Another doctrine of Hermogenes preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Eclog. ex Script. Proph.56 p.1002, being unlike anything told of him by Tertullian, was conjectured by Mosheim (de Rebus Christ. ante Const. p.435) to belong to some different Hermogenes. But the since recovered treatise on heresies by Hippolytus combines in its account of Hermogenes (viii.17, p.273) the doctrines attributed to him by Clement and by Tertullian. Probably Clement and Hippolytus drew from a common source, namely, the work |against the heresy of Hermogenes,| which, Eusebius tells us (H. E, iv.24), was written by Theophilus of Antioch, and which is mentioned also by Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i.19), who probably drew from it his account of Hermogenes, in which he clearly employs some authority different from the tenth book, or summary, of Hippolytus, of which he makes large use of elsewhere. Theodoret adds that Hermogenes was also answered by Origen, from which it has been supposed that he refers under this name to the summary now ascribed to Hippolytus; but there is no evidence that Theodoret regarded this work as Origen's (see Volkmar, Hippolytus und die römischen Zeitgenossen, p.54), so that some lost work of Origen's must be presumed. The passages cited are all our primary authorities about Hermogenes, except some statements of Philaster (see below).

A considerable distance of time and place separates the notices by Theophilus and Tertullian. THEOPHILUS survived the accession of Commodus in 180, but probably not more than two years. Hence 180 would be our latest date for the teaching of Hermogenes, which may have been earlier. He probably had disciples at Antioch, and therefore must have taught at or near there, and any writing of his answered by Theophilus must have been written in Greek. Tertullian's tract against Hermogenes is assigned by Uhlhorn (Fundamenta Chron. Tert. p.60) to a.d.206 or 207. In it Hermogenes is spoken of as still living (|ad hodiernum homo in saeculo|) and coupled with one Nigidius in the work on Prescription, c.30, as among the heretics |who still walk perverting the ways of God.| There are indications that the work to which Tertullian replies was in Latin, and every reason to think that Hermogenes (though probably, as his name indicates, of Greek descent) was then living in Carthage, for Tertullian assails his private character, entering into details in a way which would not be intelligible unless both were inhabitants of the same city. The same inference may be drawn from the frequency of Tertullian's references to Hermogenes in works of which his errors are not the subject (de Monog.16; de Praescrip.30, 33 adv. Valent.16; de Animâ, 1, 11, 21, 22, 24); for apparently proximity gave this heretic an importance in his eyes greater than was otherwise warranted. Tertullian describes him as a turbulent man, who took loquacity for eloquence and impudence for firmness. Two things in particular are shocking to his then Montanist principles, that Hermogenes was a painter, and that he had married frequently. Neander and others have supposed that the offence of Hermogenes was that he painted mythological subjects. But there is no trace of this limitation in Tertullian's treatise, which shews all through a dislike of the pictorial art, and Tertullian seems to have considered the representation of the human form absolutely forbidden by the 2nd commandment. As for the charge of frequent marriages, if Hermogenes, who in 207 would be advanced in life, was then married to a third wife, a writer so fond of rhetorical exaggeration as Tertullian might describe him as one who had formed a practice of marrying (nubit assidue), or who had |married more women than he had painted.| Tertullian's language may imply that Hermogenes had also endeavoured to prove from Scripture that a second marriage was not unlawful.

With regard to the doctrines of Hermogenes, the language of Hippolytus suggests that he denied the physical possibility of creation from nothing; but in the representation of Tertullian no stress is laid on the philosophic maxim, |Nihil ex nihilo,| and the eternal existence of matter seems only assumed to account for the origin of evil. The argument of Hermogenes was, either God made the world out of His own substance, or out of nothing, or out of previously existing matter. The first or emanation hypothesis is rejected, since He Who is indivisible and immutable could not separate Himself into parts, or make Himself other than He had ever been. The second is disproved by the existence of evil, for if God made all things out of nothing unrestrained by any condition, His work would have been all good and perfect like Himself. It remained, therefore, that God must have formed the world out of previously existent matter, through the fault of which evil was possible. Further, God must have been always God and Lord, therefore there must always have existed something of which He was God and Lord. Tertullian replies that God was always God but not always Lord, and appeals to Genesis, where the title God is given to the Creator from the first, but the title Lord not till after the creation of man. Concerning Tertullian's assertion that God was not always Father, see Bull, Del. Fid. Nic. iii.10. From the assertion of Hermogenes that God was always Lord of matter, Neander inferred that he must have denied any creation in time, and held that God had been from eternity operating in a formative manner on matter. Tertullian does not appear to have drawn this consequence, and (c.44) assumes as undisputed some definite epoch of creation. But the account of Hippolytus shews Neander to have been right. With regard to the general argument, Tertullian shews that the hypothesis of the eternity of matter relieves none of the difficulties of reconciling the existence of evil with the attributes of God. If God exercised lordship over matter, why did He not clear it of evil before He employed it in the work of creation? Or why did He employ in His work that which He knew to be evil? It would really, he says, be more honourable to God to make Him the free and voluntary author of evil than to make him the slave of matter, compelled to use it in His work, though knowing it to be evil. He contends that the hypothesis of Hermogenes amounts to Ditheism, since, though he does not give to matter the name of God, he ascribes to it God's essential attribute of eternity. He asks what just claim of lordship God could have over matter as eternal as Himself; nay, which might claim to be the superior; for matter could do without God, but God, it would seem, could not carry out His work without coming to matter for assistance. In the discussion every word in the Mosaic account of creation receives minute examination and there is a good deal of strained verbal interpretation on both sides. But the authority, and apparently the canon, of Scripture were subjects on which both were agreed. Tertullian holds Scripture so exclusive an authority that its mere silence is decisive, and, since it does not mention pre-existent matter, that those who assert its existence incur the woe denounced against those who add to that which is written.

Though the word |materialist| is first heard of in this controversy, the views of Hermogenes were very unlike those now known by that name, and it is doubtful whether our word matter exactly corresponds to the hyle of Hermogenes. This apparently included the ideas of shapelessness and disorderly motion, so that all the sensible world could not, as in our modern language, be described as material. That which became kosmos ceased to be hyle, and, in fact, Tertullian does not admit the existence of matter in the sense of Hermogenes. Hermogenes held matter to be infinite and refused to apply to it any predicate. It is without form, and is described as in a perpetual state of turbulent restless motion, like water boiling in a pot. It is not to be called good, since it needed the Deity to fashion it; nor bad, since it was capable of being reduced to order. It is not to be called corporeal, because motion, one of its essential attributes, is incorporeal, nor incorporeal because out of it bodies are made. Hermogenes repudiated the Stoic notion that God pervades matter, or is in it like honey in a honeycomb; his idea was that the Deity, without intermixing with matter, operated on it by His mere approach and by shewing Himself, just as beauty affects the mind by the mere sight of it (a very appropriate illustration for a painter) or as a magnet causes motion without contact merely on being brought near. By this approach part of matter was reduced to order and became the kosmos, but part remains unsubdued; and this, it is to be supposed, was in the theory of Hermogenes the source of evil. Tertullian acutely remarks that this language about God's drawing near to matter as well as the use of the words above and below with reference to the relative position of God and matter cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of Hermogenes as to the infinity of matter.

The lost tract of Tertullian against Hermogenes discussed the origin of the soul, which Hermogenes ascribed to matter, Tertullian to the breath of life inspired by God at the formation of man (Gen. ii.7). Tertullian accuses his opponent of mistranslation in substituting |Spirit| for |breath,| apparently in order to exclude the possibility of interpreting this part of the verse of the communication of the soul, since the Divine Spirit could not be supposed capable of falling into sin. This supplies one indication that the tract to which Tertullian replies was in Latin; and Hermogenes, as a Greek by birth, would probably not use the current Latin translation of the Bible, but render for himself.

The opinion of Hermogenes (not mentioned by Tertullian, but recorded by Clement, Hippolytus, and Theodoret) is that our Lord on His ascension left His body in the sun and Himself ascended to the Father, a doctrine which he derived or confirmed from Ps. xix., |He hath placed his tabernacle in the sun.| (Theodoret adds that Hermogenes taught that the devil and the demons would be resolved into hyle. This agrees very well with the doctrine that the soul derived its origin from matter.) It is a common point of Gnostic doctrine that our Lord's nature was after the passion resolved into its elements and that only the purely spiritual part ascended to the Father. But on no other point does Hermogenes approach Gnostic teaching; in his theory of creation, he recognizes neither emanation from God nor anything intervening between God and matter; his general doctrine was confessedly orthodox and he would seem to have no wish to separate from the church nor to consider himself as transgressing the limits of Christian philosophic speculations.

It remains to notice Philaster's confused account of Hermogenes. It would not cause much difficulty that he counts (Haer.53) the Hermogenians as a school of Sabellians, called after Hermogenes as the Praxeani were after Praxeas. Though the silence of Tertullian leads us to believe that Hermogenes himself was orthodox on this point, his followers may very possibly have allied themselves with those of Praxeas against their common opponent. But in the next section Philaster tells of Galatian heretics, Seleucus and Hermias, and attributes to them the very doctrines of Hermogenes that matter was co-eternal with God, that man's soul was from matter, and that our Lord deposited His body in the sun in accordance with the Psalm already quoted. It is beyond all probability that such a combination of doctrines could have been taught independently by two heretics and it is not likely that Hermogenes had disciples in Galatia; we may therefore reasonably believe that Philaster's Hermias is Hermogenes. Philaster, however, attributes to his heretics other doctrines which we have no reason to think were held by Hermogenes: that evil proceeded sometimes from God, sometimes from matter; that there was no visible Paradise; that water-baptism was not to be used, seeing that souls had been formed from wind and fire, and that the Baptist had said that Christ should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire; that angels, not Christ, had created men's souls; that this world was the only |infernum,| and that the only resurrection is that of the human race occurring daily in the procreation of children. Philaster may have read tracts not now extant, in which Tertullian made mention of Hermogenes, and possibly if we had the lost tract de Paradiso it might throw light on Philaster's statements. But we may safely reject his account as untrustworthy, even though we cannot now trace the origin of his confusion.

The tract against Hermogenes has been analysed by writers on Tertullian; e.g. Neander, Antignosticus, p.448, Bohn's trans.; Kaye, Tertullian, p.532; Hauck, Tertullian, p.240. Consult also arts. s.v. in Tillemont, iii. and Walch, Hist. der Ketz. i.576; and E. Heintzel Hermogenes (Berlin, 1902).

[G.S.]

Hesychius (3), Egyptian bp
Hesychius (3) (Hesechius), bp. of an Egyptian see, mentioned as the author, with Phileas, Theodorus, and Pachumius, of a letter to Meletius, schismatic bp. of Lycopolis in Egypt. The letter, given in a Latin version in Gallandius, Bibl. Patrum, iv.67, is a remonstrance to Meletius on his irregular ordinations in other dioceses, and was written (c.296) when the authors were in prison and Peter of Alexandria alive. The martyrdom of Hesychius under Galerius, with Phileas, Pachumius, and Theodorus, is recorded in Eus. Hist. Eccl. viii.13. This Hesychius has been usually identified with the reviser of the text of the LXX, and of N.T., or at least of the Gospels, which obtained extensive currency in Egypt. There are no grounds for questioning the truth of this conjecture. This Hesychian recension is mentioned more than once by Jerome, who states that it was generally accepted in Egypt, as that of his fellow-martyr, Lucian of Antioch, was in Asia Minor and the East (Hieron. Praef. in Paralipom. ad Chromat. Ep.107, repeated in Apologia II. adv. Rufin. vol. i. p.763, Paris, 1609). Jerome also refers to it as |exemplaria Alexandrina| (in Esai. lviii.11). We know little or nothing more of this edition of the LXX. It was doubtless an attempt, like that of Lucian, to purify the text in use in Egypt, by collating various manuscripts and by recourse to other means of assistance at hand. Jerome speaks with some contempt of his labours in the field of O.T. recension, and still more of his and Lucian's recension of the Gospels. If we interpret his words strictly, Hesychius, as well as Lucian, added so much to the text as to lay them open to the charge of falsifying the Gospels and rendering their work |apocryphal| (Hieron. Praef. in Evang. cad Damasum). The words of the famous Decretal of Gelasius (c.500) |on ecclesiastical books,| which are, however, regarded by Credner (Zur Gesch. d. K. p.216) as additions to the original decree |made at the time it was republished in Spain under the name of Hormisdas, c.700-800| (Westcott, Hist. of Can. p.448, n.1), are equally condemnatory: |Evangelia quae falsavit Isicius [Hesychius] -- Apocrypha| (Labbe, Conc. iv.126). Westcott pronounces Hug's speculations as to the influence of this recension, |of which nothing is certainly known,| |quite unsatisfactory| (ib.).

[E.V.]

Hesychius (25), presbyter of Jerusalem
Hesychius (25), presbyter of Jerusalem in the first half of 5th cent., a copious and learned writer whose comments on Holy Scripture and other works gained a great reputation. Considerable confusion exists as to the authorship of several of the treatises ascribed to him -- a confusion which it is hopeless entirely to remove. It is possible that some were written by the bp. of Salona. [HESYCHIUS (6).] It is altogether a mistake to speak of Hesychius as bp. of Jerusalem. According to the Greek Menology, Mar.28, he was born and educated at Jerusalem, where |by meditating on the Scriptures he obtained a deep acquaintance with divine things.| On reaching manhood he left home and devoted himself to a solitary life in the desert, where he |with bee-like industry gathered the flowers of virtue from the holy Fathers there.| He was ordained presbyter against his will by the patriarch of Jerusalem, and spent the rest of his life there or at other sacred places. Hesychius the presbyter is mentioned by Theophanes, who, in 412, speaks of him as |the presbyter of Jerusalem,| and in 413 records his celebrity for theological learning. He is mentioned in the Life of St. Euthymius by Cyril of Scythopolis (Coteler. Eccl. Graec. Monism. t. ii. p.233, § 42), as accompanying Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem, to the consecration of the church of the |laura| of St. Euthymius, a.d.428 or 429, and as received with much honour by the abbat. He is said by Allatius (Diatriba de Simeonibus, p.100) to have been Chartophylax or Keeper of the Records of the church of the Anastasis at Jerusalem. His death can only be placed approximately c.438. He is twice mentioned by Photius, who shares to some extent in the confusion as to the Hesychii, and assigns him no date. In Cod.275 Photius quotes a rhetorical passage from a sermon on James the Lord's brother and David (theopator), evidently delivered at Jerusalem. Hesychius compares Bethlehem and Sion, to the great advantage of the latter, and, in a manner very natural in a presbyter of Jerusalem, elevates St. James's authority above that of St. Peter in the council of Jerusalem.

Of several of the numerous works attributed to this author, all we can say is that they bear the name of Hesychius in one of its forms, but whether actually the composition of the presbyter of Jerusalem or of some other Hesychius it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Tillemont feels no insuperable difficulty in assigning them all to the same author, but confesses that fuller light might lead to a different conclusion.

(1) In Leviticum Libri VII. Explanationum Allegoricarum sive Commentarius, dedicated to the deacon Eutychianus, is the most extensive work extant under the name of Hesychius. It has frequently been printed. The earliest editions are those of Basle (1527, fol.) and Paris (1581, 8vo). It is in the various Bibliothecae Patrum, as that of Lyons, t. xii. p.52, and the Vet. Patr. Bibl. of Galland, t. xi.

(2) Commentaries on the Psalms. -- Harles and Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p.549, speak of many portions of this work existing in MS., especially one in the University Library of Cambridge containing Pss. lxxvii.-cvii. The only portions printed are the Fragmenta in Psalmos, extracted from the Greek Catena in Psalmos, with a Latin trans. by Balthazar Corderius. These are very sensible and useful, and lead us to wish for the publication of the whole. See Faulhaber, Hesych. Hierosol. Interpr. Is. Proph.1900 sqq.; att. to Faulhaber in Theol. Quartalschr.1901. The Commentary on the Psalms att. to Athanasius (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxvii.) is by Hesychius.

(3) Sticheron sive kephalaia in XII. Prophetas et Esaiam, an epitome of the 12 Minor Prophets and Isaiah, section by section.

(4) Fragments of Commentaries on Ezk., Dan., Acts, James, I. Peter, and Jude.

(5) Difficultatum et Solutionum Collectio. -- A harmonizing of 61 discrepant passages in the Gospel history, generally characterized by sound common sense and a reluctance to force an unreal agreement.

(6) Eight Sermons, or Fragments of Sermons.

(7) Antirretika kai Eutika. Two Centuries of Moral Maxims on Temperance and Virtue and Instructions on Prayer, addressed to one Theodotus.

(8) The Martyrdom of Longinus the Centurion. -- The author, according to Fabricius, belonged to a much later period than the one who wrote the works previously enumerated.

(9) An Ecclesiastical History, of which a fragment is given in the Acts of the council of Constantinople, a.d.353, Collat. Quinta, condemnatory of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p.570; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. ed. Harles, t. vii. pp.548-551; Galland, Vet. Patr. Bibl. t. xi.; Migne, Patr. Gk, vol. xciii. pp.781-1560.

[E.V.]

Hesychius (27) Illustris, a writer
Hesychius (27) Illustris, a copious historical and biographical writer, the son of an advocate and born at Miletus. His distinctive name (Illoustrios) was the official title conferred by Constantine the Great on the highest rank of state officers. Nothing is known of him except that he lived in the reigns of Anastasius, Justin, and Justinian, and that his literary labours were cut short by grief at the premature death of a son named John. Suidas doubts whether he was a Christian on the somewhat precarious ground of his omission of all ecclesiastical writers in his work on men of learning. But very substantial reasons have been produced on the other side by Cave (Hist. Lit. t. i. p.518) and accepted by Fabricius. His chief work was a Universal History in six books and in a synoptical form through a period of 1920 years, reaching from Belus, the reputed founder of the Assyrian empire, to the death of Anastasius I., a.d.518. The whole has perished except the initial portion of bk. vi., which has been several times printed under the title of Constantinopolis Origines, or Antiquitates. It was published by George Dousa, and ascribed to Georgius Codinus (Heidelberg, 1596), and subsequently by Meursius, under the name of its real author, appended to his de Viris Claris (Lugd. Bat.1613). It was followed by a supplement, recording the reign of Justin, and the early years of Justinian. This, as the work of a contemporary whose official position enabled him to obtain accurate information, must have been of great historical value, and its loss is very much to be regretted. Hesychius also wrote a series of biographical notices of learned men, which, going over very much the same ground as the work of Diogenes Laertius, has been supposed to be an epitome of the Vitae Philosophorum. A comparison of the two will shew that the differences are too great to admit this idea. This work has been printed by Meursius (Lugd. Bat.1613). Without sufficient grounds Hesychius Illustris has been identified with the lexicographer of Alexandria. Cave, l.c.; Suidas, s.v.; Photius, Cod.69; Fabr. Bibl. Graec. t. vii. p.544; Thorschmidius, de Hesychii Illustri, ap. Orellium Hesychio Opera.

[E.V.]

Hieracas, an Egyptian teacher
Hieracas (Hierax), an Egyptian teacher, from whom the sect of Hieracitae took their name. Our knowledge of him is almost entirely derived from Epiphanius (Haer.67, p.709), who states that he was contemporary with the Egyptian bp. Meletius and Peter of Alexandria, and lived under Diocletian's persecution. This agrees very well with the notice of him by Arius (vide infra), so that he may be placed at the very beginning of the 4th cent. Epiphanius treats him with more respect than other founders of heretical sects, and is willing to believe that he practised asceticism bond fide, which, in the case of his followers, he counts but as hypocrisy. According to Epiphanius, Hieracas lived at Leontopolis, in Egypt, abstaining from wine and animal food; and by his severity of life and the weight of his personal character did much to gain reception for his doctrines, especially among other Egyptian ascetics. He had great ability and learning, being well trained in Greek and Egyptian literature and science, and wrote several works in both languages. Epiphanius ascribes to him a good knowledge of medicine, and, with more hesitation, of astronomy and magic. He practised the art of calligraphy, and is said to have lived to 90 years of age, and to have retained such perfect eyesight as to be able to continue the practice of his art to the time of his death. Besides composing hymns, he wrote several expository works on Scripture, of which one on the Hexaemeron is particularly mentioned. It was, doubtless, in this work that he put forward a doctrine censured by Epiphanius, viz. the denial of a material Paradise. Mosheim connects this with his reprobation of marriage, imagining that it arose from the necessity of replying to the objection that marriage was a state ordained by God in Paradise. Neander, with more probability, conceives that the notion of the essential evil of matter was at the bottom of this as well as of other doctrines of Hieracas. This would lead him to allegorize the Paradise of Genesis, interpreting it of that higher spiritual world from which the heavenly spirit fell by an inclination to earthly matter. This notion would also account for a second doctrine, which, according to Epiphanius, he held in common with Origen, viz. that the future resurrection would be of the soul only, not of the material body; for all who counted it a gain to the soul to be liberated by death from the bonds of matter found it hard to believe that it could be again imprisoned in a body at the resurrection. The same notion would explain the prominence which the mortification of the body held in his practical teaching; so that, according to this view, Hieracas would be referred to the class of Gnostic ENCRATITES. The most salient point in his practical teaching was, that he absolutely condemned marriage, holding that, though permitted under the old dispensation, since the coming of Christ no married person could inherit the kingdom of heaven. If it was objected that the apostle had said, |marriage is honourable in all,| he appealed to what the same apostle had said |a little further on| (I. Cor. vii.), when he wished all to be as himself and only tolerated marriage| because of fornication,| i.e. as the lesser of two evils. Thus it appears that Hieracas believed in the Pauline origin of Hebrews, and his language seems to indicate that in his sacred volume that epistle preceded I. Corinthians. He received also the pastoral epistles of St. Paul, for he appeals to I. Tim. ii.11 in support of another of his doctrines, viz. that children dying before the use of reason cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; and asks if he who strives cannot be crowned unless he strive lawfully, how can he be crowned who has never striven at all? Arius, in his letter to Alexander in defence of his views concerning our Lord's Person (Epiph. Haer.69, 7, p.732; Athan. de Syn. i.583; Hilar. de Trin. vi.5, 12), contrasts his own doctrine with that of Valentinus, of Manichaeus, of Sabellius, of Hieracas; and presumably all these teachers, by rejection of whom he hopes to establish his own orthodoxy, were reputed as heretics. Hieracas, according to Arius, illustrated the relation between the first two Persons of the Godhead by the comparison of a light kindled from another, or of a torch divided into two, or, as Hilary understands it, of a lamp with two wicks burning in the same oil.

His doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is more questionable. He was influenced by the book of the Ascension of Isaiah, which he received as authoritative. In it Isaiah is represented as seeing in the seventh Heaven, on the right and left hand of God respectively, two Beings like each other, one being the Son, the other the angel of the Holy Spirit Who spake by the prophets. Hieracas inferred that the latter Being, Who makes priestly intercession with groanings that cannot be uttered, must be the same as Melchisedek, who also was |made like unto the Son of God,| and |who remaineth a priest for ever.| These tenets are ascribed to Hieracas by Epiphanius, whose account is abridged by Augustine (Haer.47), by Joannes Damascenus (66), and by |Praedestinatus| (47). The continued existence of the sect is assumed in a story told by Rufinus (Hist. Mon.28, p.196) of Macarius, who, when he had failed to confute the cunning arguments of a Hieracite heretic to the satisfaction of his hearers, vanquished him by successfully challenging him to a contest as to which could raise a dead body. Rufinus does not make the story turn on the fact that Hieracas denied the resurrection of the flesh.

[G.S.]

Hierocles (1), Neoplatonic philosopher
Hierocles (1), a native of a small town in Caria, born at latest c.275. He was a Neoplatonic philosopher, to be distinguished from the 5th-cent. philosopher HIEROCLES (2). Lactantius supposed him to have been in early life a Christian, as he displayed in his writings such intimate knowledge of Scripture and Christian teaching. He must have been an active and able administrator, as he seems to have risen rapidly by his own exertions. In an inscription at Palmyra (Corp. Inscript. Lat. t. iii. no.133) his name occurs as ruler of that city under Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and Constantius being Caesars. Here he probably came in contact with Galerius and impressed the Caesar with a respect for his abilities on his famous Persian expedition, when the first seeds of the persecution were sown, 297-302. The expression reiterated by Lactantius, that he was the |author and adviser of the persecution,| lends support to this view. He was translated as prefect in 304 or 305 to Bithynia after the persecution broke out, and in 305 or 306 was promoted to the government of Alexandria, as is proved by the fact that Eusebius records the martyrdom of Aedesius at Alexandria as occurring by his orders a short time after that of Apphianus, which he dates Apr.2, 306 (cf. Eus. Mart. Pal. cc. iv. v.; Epiphanius, Haer. lxviii.; Assem. Mart. Orient. ii.195). Hierocles seems to have there displayed the same bloodthirsty cruelty as marked another philosophic persecutor, Theotecnus. He wrote a book against Christianity, entitled Logos philalethes pros tous Christianous, in which he brought forward various scriptural difficulties and alleged contradictions and instituted comparisons between the life and miracles of Jesus Christ and of Apollonius of Tyana. To this Eusebius replied in a treatise yet extant, Liber contra Hieroclem, wherein he shews that Apollonius was |so far from being comparable to Jesus Christ that he did not deserve to be ranked among the philosophers| (Du Pin, H. E. i.155, art. |Eusebius|). Duchesne, in an acute treatise on the then lately discovered works of Macarius Magnes (Paris, Klinksieck, 1877), suggests that the work of Hierocles embodied the objections drawn by Porphyry from Holy Scripture, and that the work of Macarius was a reply to them, and suggests that Hierocles wrote his book while ruling at Palmyra before the persecution. Coming from a man in his position, it would carry great weight in the region of the Euphrates. Macarius, therefore, as a dweller in that region (Duchesne, p. ii), and Eusebius, replied. Fleury, H. E. t. ii.1. viii. § 30; Tillem. Mém. xiii.333; Hist. des Emp. iv.307; Neander, H. E. t. i. pp.201, 240, ed. Bohn; Macar. Mag. ed. Blondel; Mason, Dioclet. Persec. pp.58, 108; Herzog, Real-Encyc. art. |Hierocles.| Dr. Gaisford, of Oxford, pub. in 1852 the treatises of Eusebius against Hierocles and against Marcellus.

[G.T.S.]

Hierocles of Alexandria, a philosopher
Hierocles (2), a philosopher, generally classed among the neo-Platonists, who lived at Alexandria in the first half of 5th cent., and delivered lectures of considerable merit. His character is spoken of by Damascius (quoted by Suidas) in high terms. When sojourning at Constantinople he came into collision with the government (or, as Kuster interprets it, with the Christian authorities) and was severely beaten in the court of justice, possibly (as Zeller conjectures) for his adherence to the old religion. He was then banished, and retired to Alexandria. His teacher in philosophy was Plutarch the neo-Platonist; Theosebius is mentioned as his disciple.

His principal extant work is a commentary on the Golden Verses attributed to Pythagoras. His entire remains have been ed. by bp. Pearson, P. Needham (Camb.1709), Gaisford (1850), and Mullach (1853). See the last vol. of Zeller's Greek Philosophy, pp.681-687.

Hierocles appears to have been a reconciler between the old and the new. Doubtless a sincere adherent of the heathen religion, its distinctive features melt away in his hands and his soft and tender tone recalls the accents of Christian piety, e.g. in the following passages from his commentary on the Golden Verses: |No proper cause is assignable for God to have created the world but His essential goodness. He is good by nature; and the good envies none in anything| (p.20, ed. Needham). |What offering can you make to God, out of material things, that shall be likened unto or suitable to Him? . . . For, as the Pythagoreans say, God has no place in the world more fitted for Him than a pure soul| (p.24). |'Strength dwells near necessity.' Our author adds this to shew that we must not measure our ability to tolerate our friend by mere choice, but by our real strength, which is discovered only by actual necessity. We have all in time of need more strength than we commonly think| (p.52). |We must love the unworthy for the sake of their partnership in the same nature with us| (p.56). |We must be gentle to those who speak falsely, knowing from what evils we ourselves have been cleansed. . . . And gentleness is much aided by the confidence which comes from real knowledge| (p.110). |Let us unite prayer with work. We must pray for the end for which we work, and work for the end for which we pray; to teach us this our author says, 'Go to your work, having prayed the gods to accomplish it'| (p.172).

The reasons adduced by Hierocles for belief in a future state are strictly moral, and quite remote from subtlety: |Except some part of us subsists after death, capable of receiving the ornaments of truth and goodness (and the rational soul has beyond doubt this capability), there cannot exist in us the pure desire for honourable actions. The suspicion that we may suffer annihilation destroys our concern for such matters| (p.76).

Not less noteworthy are his views respecting Providence. God, he says, is the sole eternal author of all things; those Platonists who say that God could only make the universe by the aid of eternal matter are in error (p.246, from the treatise peri pronoias). Man has free will; but since the thoughts of man vacillate and sometimes forget God, man is liable to sin: what we call fate is the just and necessary retribution made by God, or by those powers who do God's will, for man's actions, whether for merit or demerit (p.256; cf. p.92). Hence the inequality in the lots of men. Pain is the result of antecedent sin; those who know this know the remedy, for they will henceforward avoid wrongdoing and will not accuse God as if He were the essential cause of their suffering (pp.92, 94).

The approximation of heathen philosophy to Christianity is the most interesting point to be noticed in connexion with Hierocles. He never, in his extant works, directly mentions Christianity; what degree of tacit opposition is implied in his philosophy is a difficult question. His philosophy has points more specially characteristic of Platonism and neo-Platonism, e.g. his belief in the pre-existence of man and in the transmigration of souls. With Porphyry and Jamblichus, however, he denied that the souls of men could migrate into the bodies of animals.

We conclude by quoting a passage on Marriage; shewing the singularly modern and Christian type of his mind. |Marriage is expedient, first, because it produces a truly divine fruit, namely children, our helpers alike when we are young and strong, and when we are old and worn. . . . But even apart from this, wedded life is a happy lot. A wife by her tender offices refreshes those who are wearied with external toil; she makes her husband forget those troubles which are never so active and aggressive as in the midst of a solitary and unfriended life; sometimes questioning him on his business pursuits, or referring some domestic matter to his judgment, and taking counsel with him upon it: giving a savour and pleasure to life by her unstrained cheerfulness and alacrity. Then again in the united exercise of religious sacrifice, in her conduct as mistress of the house in the absence of her husband, when the family has to be held in order not without a certain ruling spirit, in her care for her servants, in her careful tending of the sick, in these and other things too many to be; recounted, her influence is notable. . . . Splendid dwellings, marbles and precious stones and myrtle groves are but poor ornaments to a family. But the heaven-blessed union of a husband and wife, who have all, even their bodies and souls, in common, who rule their house and bring up their children well, is a more noble and excellent ornament; as indeed Homer said. . . . Nothing is so burdensome but that a husband and wife can easily bear it when they are in harmony together, and willing to give their common strength to the task.|

[J.R.M.]

Hieronymus, Eusebius (Jerome), saint
Hieronymus (4) (Jerome), St. The full name is Eusebius Hieronymus.

Among the best accounts of St. Jerome are: Saint Jérôme, la Société chrétienne à Rome et l'emigration romaine en Terre Sainte, par M. Amédée Thierry (Paris, 1867), and Hieronymus sein Leben und Werken von Dr. Otto Zöckler (Gotha, 1865); the former gives a vivid, artistic, and, on the whole, accurate picture of his life, with large extracts in the original from his writings, the latter a critical and comprehensive view of both. These contain all that is best in previous biographers, such as the Benedictine Martianay (Paris, 1706), Sebastian Dolci (Ancona, 1750), Engelstoft (Copenhagen, 1797); to which may be added notices of Jerome in the Acta Sanctorum, Biblia Sacra, Du Pin's and Ceillier's Histories of Ecclesiastical Writers, the excellent article in the D. of G. and R. Biogr., the Life of Jerome prefixed to Vallarsi's ed. of his works, which has a singular value from its succinct narrative and careful investigation of dates.

He was born c.346 at Stridon, a town near Aquileia, of Catholic Christian parents (Pref. to Job), who, according to the custom then common, did not have him baptized in infancy. They were not very wealthy, but possessed houses (Ep. lxvi.4) and slaves (cont. Ruf. i. c.30), and lived in close intimacy with the richer family of Bonosus, Jerome's foster-brother (Ep. iii.5). They were living in 373, when Jerome first went to the East (xxii.30), but, since he never mentions them later, they probably died in the Gothic invasion (377) when Stridon was destroyed. He had a brother Paulinian, some 20 years younger (lxxxii.8), who from 385 lived constantly with him. He was brought up in comfort, if not in luxury (xxii.30) and received a good education. He was in a grammar school, probably at Rome, and about 17 years old, when the death of the emperor Julian (363) was announced (Comm. on Habakkuk, i.10). Certainly it was not much later than this that he was sent with his friend Bonosus to complete his education at Rome, and they probably lived together there. The chief study of those days was rhetoric, to which Jerome applied himself diligently, attending the law courts and hearing the best pleaders (Comm. on Gal. ii.13). Early in his stay at Rome he lived irregularly and fell into sin (Ep. vi.4, xiv.6, xlviii.20). But he was drawn back, and finally cast in his lot with the Christian church. He describes how on Sundays he used to visit, with other young men of like age and mind, the tombs of the martyrs in the Catacombs (Comm. in. Ezek. c.40, p.468); and this indicates a serious bent, which culminated in his baptism at Rome while Liberius was pope, i.e. before 366. While there, he acquired a considerable library (Ep. xxii.30) which he afterwards carried wherever he went. On the termination of his studies in Rome he determined to go with Bonosus into Gaul, for what purpose is unknown. They probably first returned home and lived together for a time in Aquileia, or some other town in N. Italy. Certainly they at this time made the acquaintance of Rufinus (iii.3) and that friendship began between him and Jerome which afterwards turned out so disastrously to both (see Augustine to Jerome, Ep. cx.). Hearing that they were going into Gaul, the country of Hilary, Rufinus begged Jerome to copy for him Hilary's commentary on the Psalms and his book upon the Councils (Ep. v.2); and this may have fostered Jerome's tendency towards ecclesiastical literature, which was henceforward the main pursuit of his life. This vocation declared itself during his stay in Gaul. He went with his friend to several parts of Gaul, staying longest at Trèves, then the seat of government. But his mind was occupied with scriptural studies, and he made his first attempt at a commentary. It was on the prophet Obadiah, which he interpreted mystically (pref. to Comm. on Obadiah).

The friends returned to Italy. Eusebius, bp. of Vercellae, had a few years before returned from banishment in the East, bringing with him Evagrius, a presbyter (afterwards bp.) of Antioch, who during his stay in Italy had played a considerable part in church affairs (Ep. i.15). He seems to have had a great influence over Jerome at this time; and either with him or about the same time he settled at Aquileia, and from 370 to 373 the chief scene of interest lies there, where a company of young men devoted themselves to sacred studies and the ascetic life. It included the presbyter Chromatius (afterwards bp. of Aquileia), his brother Eusebius, with Jovinus the archdeacon; Rufinus, Bonosus, Heliodorus (afterwards bp. of Altinum), the monk Chrysogonus, the subdeacon Niceas, and Hylas the freedman of the wealthy Roman lady Melania; all of whom are met with later in Jerome's history. They were knit together by close friendship and common pursuits; and the presence of Evagrius, who knew the holy places and hermitages of the East, gave a special direction to their ascetic tendencies. For a time all went well. The baptism of Rufinus took place now (Ruf. Apol. i.4). It was Jerome's fortune to become, wherever he lived, the object of great affection, and also of great animosity. Whatever was the cause (Ep. iii.3), the society at Aquileia suddenly dispersed.

The friends went (probably early in 373) in different directions. Bonosus retired to an island in the Adriatic and lived as a hermit (vii.3). Rufinus went to the East in the train of Melania. Jerome, with Heliodorus, Innocentius, and Hylas, accompanied Evagrius to Palestine. Leaving his parents, sister, relations and home comforts (xxii.30), but taking his library, he travelled through Thrace, Pontus, Bithynia, Galatia, Cappadocia and Cilicia, to Antioch. The journey was exhausting, and Jerome had a long period of ill-health, culminating in a fever. Innocentius and Hylas died from the same fever. Heliodorus went to Jerusalem. During his illness (ib.) Jerome had his bent towards scriptural studies and asceticism confirmed. While his friends stood by his bed expecting his death, he felt himself, in a trance, carried before the throne of God, and condemned as being no Christian but a Ciceronian, who preferred worldly literature to Christ. From this time, though he continued to quote the classics profusely, his literary interest was wholly with the Bible and church writings. It seems likely that, as soon as his health was restored, he determined to embrace the solitary life. He wrote to Theodosius (ii.), who was apparently a kind of chief of the hermits in the desert of Chalcis, asking to be received among them, and thither he proceeded about the autumn of 374.

He was now about 28 years old. The desert of Chalcis, where he lived for 4 or 5 years (374-379), was in the country of the Saracens, in the E. of Syria (v.). It was peopled by hermits, who lived mainly in solitude, but had frequent intercourse among themselves and a little with the world. They lived under some kind of discipline, with a ruling presbyter named Marcus (xvii.). Jerome lived in a cell, and gained his own living (xvii.3); probably, according to the recommendation he gives later to Rusticus (cxxv.), cultivating a garden, and making baskets of rushes, or, more congenially, copying books. He describes his life in writing to Eustochium (xxii.7), 9 or 10 years later, as one of spiritual struggles. |I sat alone; I was filled with bitterness: my limbs were uncomely and rough with sackcloth, and my squalid skin became as black as an Ethiopian's. Every day I was in tears and groans; and if ever the sleep which hung upon my eyelids overcame my resistance, I knocked against the ground my bare bones, which scarce clung together. I say nothing of my meat and drink, since the monks even when sick use cold water, and it is thought a luxury if they ever partake of cooked food. Through fear of hell, I had condemned myself to prison; I had scorpions and wild beasts for my only companions.| His literary talent was by no means idle during this period. He wrote letters to his friends in Italy, to Florentius at Jerusalem (v.-xvii.), and to Heliodorus (xiv.) on the Praises of the Desert, chiding him for not having embraced the perfect life of solitude. A Jew who had become a Christian was his instructor in Hebrew (xviii.10), and Jerome obtained from one of the sect of the Nazarenes at Beroea the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which he copied, and afterwards translated into Greek and Latin (de Vir. Ill.2, 3). He was frequently visited by Evagrius (Ep. vii.1), who also acted as the intermediary of his communication with his friends in Aquileia, and later with Damasus at Rome (xv.5). But again, owing chiefly to his vehement feelings and expressions, he made enemies. He was driven away by the ill-will of his
brother-monks. At first, as we see from his letter to Heliodorus, he was satisfied with his condition; but his last years in the desert were embittered by theological strife, relating to the conflicts in the church at Antioch, from which he was glad to escape. The see of Antioch was claimed by three bishops, Vitalis the Arian, Meletius, acknowledged by Basil and the orthodox bishops of the East (Basil, Ep.156, to Evagrius), and Paulinus, supported by pope Damasus and the stronger anti-Arian party of Rome. Between Meletius and Paulinus the dispute was mainly verbal, but none the less bitter. Jerome complains that the Meletians, not content with his holding the truth, treated him as a heretic if he did not do so in their words (Ep. xv.3). He appealed to Damasus, strongly protesting his submission to Rome (xv. xvi.). Finding his position more and more difficult, he wrote to Marcus, the chief presbyter of the monks of Chalcis (xvii.), in the winter of 378, professing his soundness in the faith, declaring that he was ready, but for illness, to depart, and begging the hospitality of the desert till the winter was past. Proceeding in the spring of 379 to Antioch, he stayed there till 380, uniting himself to the party of Paulinus, and and by him was ordained presbyter against his will. He never celebrated the Eucharist or officiated as presbyter, as appears from many passages in his works. There are extant no letters and only one work of this period, the dialogue of an orthodox man with a Luciferian. Lucifer of Cagliari having taken part in the appointment of Paulinus, a corrective was needed for the more extreme among the Western party at Antioch; and this was given in Jerome's dialogue, which is clear, moderate, and free from the violence of his later controversial works. It exhibits a considerable knowledge of church history, and contains the account of the council of Ariminum, with the famous words (c.19): |Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est.| In 380 Jerome went to Constantinople until the end of 381. He sought the instruction of Gregory Nazianzen, who had taken charge of the orthodox church there in 379, and frequent allusions in his works witness to his profiting greatly from his master's mode of interpreting Scripture. He calls him |praeceptor meus| (de Vir. Ill.117) and appeals to his authority in his commentaries and letters (Comm. on Ephes. v.3; Epp. l.1, lii.8, etc.). He was also acquainted with Gregory of Nyssa (de Vir. Ill.128). He was attacked, while at Constantinople, with a complaint in the eyes, arising from overwork, which caused him to dictate the works he now wrote. This practice afterwards became habitual to him (pref. to Comm. on Gal. iii.), though he did not wholly give up writing with his own hand; and he contrasts the imperfections of the works which he dictated with the greater elaboration he could give those he himself wrote. He wrote no letters here; but his literary activity was great. He translated the Chronicle of Eusebius, a large work, which embraces the chronology from the creation to a.d.330, Jerome adding the events of the next 50 years. He translated the Homilies of Origen on Jer. and Ezk., possibly also on Isa., and wrote a short treatise for Damasus on the interpretations of the Seraphim in Isa. vi., which is improperly placed among the letters (Ep. xviii.). These works mark the epoch when he began to feel the importance of Origen as a church-writer, though daring even then to differ from him in doctrine, and also to realize the imperfections of the existing versions of the Scriptures. In the treatise on the Seraphim, and again in the preface to the Chronicle, we find him contrast the various Gk. versions of O.T., studies which eventually forced on him the necessity of a translation direct from the Hebrew. What were his relations to the council of Constantinople in 381 we do not know. It is certain, however, that pope Damasus desired his presence in Rome at the council of 382, which reviewed the Acts of that council, and that he went in the train of bps. Paulinus of Antioch and Epiphanius of Constantia (Salamis) in Cyprus (cxxiii.10; cxxvii.7).

Bible Work. -- His stay in Rome, from the spring of 382 to Aug.385, was a very eventful and decisive period in his life. He made many friends and many enemies; his knowledge and reputation as a scholar greatly increased, and his experience of Rome determined him to give himself irrevocably and exclusively to his two great interests, scriptural study and the promotion of asceticism. He undertook, at the request of Damasus, a revision of the version of the Psalms (vol. x. col.121). He translated from the LXX; and his new version was used in the Roman church till the pontificate of Pius V. He, also at the request of Damasus, revised the N.T., of which the old Versio Itala was very defective. The preface addressed to Damasus (ib. col.557) is a good critical document, pointing out that the old version had been varied by transcribers, and asking, |If anyone has the right version, which is it?| It was intended as a preface to the Gospels only; but from the record of his works in the list of ecclesiastical writers (de Vir. Ill.135), which states that he had restored the N.T. according to the original Greek, as well as from other passages (e.g. Ep. xxvii.3), we infer that the whole version was completed (see Vallarsi's pref. to vol. x.; also Murray's Illus. B. D. (1908), art. VULGATE). He also, at the request of Damasus and others, wrote many short exegetical treatises, included among his letters (on Hosanna, xix. xx.; Prodigal Son, xxi.; O.T. Names of God, xxv.; Halleluia and Amen, xxvi.; Sela and Diapsalma, xxviii.; Ephod and Seraphim, xxix.; Alphabetical Psalms, xxx.; |The Bread of Carefulness,| xxxiv.). He began also his studies on the original of O.T. by collating the Gk. versions of Aquila and the LXX with the Heb. (xxxii., xxxvi.12), and was thus further confirmed in the convictions which led to the Vulgate version. He translated for Damasus the Commentary of Origen on the Song of Songs (vol. x. p.500), and began his translation of the work of Didymus, the blind Origenistic teacher of Alexandria, on the Holy Spirit, which he did not complete till after his settlement at Bethlehem, probably because of the increasing suspicions and enmity of clergy and people, whom he speaks of as the senate of the Pharisees, against all that had any connexion with Origen (pref. to Didymus on the Holy Spirit, vol. ii.105), which cause also prevented him continuing the translation of Origen's Commentaries, begun at Constantinople. Jerome was Origen's vehement champion and the contemptuous opponent of his impugners. |The city of Rome,| he says, |consents to his condemnation . . . not because of the novelty of his doctrines, not because of heresy, as the dogs who are mad against him now pretend; but because they could not bear the glory of his eloquence and his knowledge, and because, when he spoke, they were all thought to be dumb| (Ep. xxxiii.4).

Asceticism. -- The other chief object of his life increased this enmity, although it also made great advances during his stay at Rome. Nearly fifty years before, Athanasius and the monk Peter (334) had sown the seeds of asceticism at Rome by their accounts of the monasteries of Nitria and the Thebaid. The declining state of the empire had meanwhile predisposed men either to selfish luxury or monasticism. Epiphanius, with whom Jerome now came to Rome, had been trained by the hermits HILARION and HESYCHAS; he was, with Paulinus, the guest of the wealthy and noble Paula (cviii.5), the heiress of the Aemilian race; and thus Jerome was introduced to one who became his life-long friend and his chief support in his labours She had three daughters: Blessila, whose death, after a short and austere widowhood, was so eventful to Jerome himself; Julia Eustochium, who first among the Roman nobility took the virgin's vow; and Paulina, who married Jerome's friend Pammachius. These formed part of a circle of ladies who gradually gathered round the ascetic teacher of scriptural lore. Among them were MARCELLA, whose house on the Aventine was their meeting-place; her young friend Principia (cxxvii.); her sister the recluse Asella, the confidant of Jerome's complaints on leaving Rome (xlv.); Lea, already the head of a kind of convent, whose sudden death was announced whilst the friends were reading the Psalms (xxiii.); Furia, the descendant of Camillus, sister-in-law to Blesilla, and her mother Titiana; Marcellina and Felicitas, to whom Jerome's last adieus were sent on leaving Rome (xlv.); perhaps also, though she is not named till later, the enthusiastic Fabiola, less steady, but more eager than the rest (lxxvii.). These ladies, all of the highest patrician families, were already disposed to the ascetic life. Contact with the Eastern bishops added a special interest in Palestine; and the presence of Jerome confirmed both these tendencies. He became the centre of a band of friends who, withdrawn from a political and social life which they regarded as hopelessly corrupt, gave themselves to the study of Scripture and to works of charity. They knew Greek; learned Hebrew that they might sing the Psalms in the original; learned by heart the writings of their teacher (lxxvii.9); held daily meetings whereat he expounded the Scriptures (xxiii.1), and for them he wrote many of his exegetical treatises. The principles he instilled into their minds may be seen in many of his letters of this period, which were at once copied and eagerly seized both by friends and enemies. The treatise which especially illustrates his teaching at this time is addressed to Eustochium on the Preservation of Virginity (xxii.). Jerome's own experience in the desert, his anti-Ciceronian dream at Antioch, his knowledge of the desert monks, of whom he gives a valuable description, were here used in favour of the virgin and ascetic life; the extreme fear of impurity contrasts strangely with the gross suggestions in every page; it contains such a depreciation of the married state, the vexations of which (|uteri tumentes, infantium vagitus|) are only relieved by vulgar and selfish luxury, that almost the only advantage allowed it is that by it virgins are brought into the world; and the vivid descriptions of Roman life -- the pretended virgins, the avaricious and self-indulgent matrons, the dainty, luxurious, and rapacious clergy -- forcible as they are, lose some of their value by their appearance of caricature. Another treatise written during this period, against the layman HELVIDIUS, the pupil of Auxentius of Milan, on the perpetual virginity of Mary, though its main points are well argued, exhibits the same fanatical aversion to marriage, combined with a supercilious disregard of his opponent which was habitual to Jerome.

A crisis in Jerome's fortunes came with the end of 384. Damasus, who had been pope for nearly 20 years, was dying, and amongst his possible successors Jerome could not escape mention. He had, as he tells us, on first coming to Rome, been pointed out as the future pope (xlv.3). But he was entirely unfitted by character and habit of mind for an office which has always required the talents of the statesman and man of the world, rather than those of the student, and he had offended every part of the community. The general lay feeling was strongly opposed to asceticism (xxvii.2). At the funeral of Blesilla (xxxix.4) the rumour was spread that she had been killed by the excessive austerities enjoined upon her; the violent grief of her mother was taken as a reproach to the ascetic system, and the cry was heard, |The monks to the Tiber!| Jerome, though cautioned by his friends to moderate his language (xxvii.2), continued to use the most insulting expressions towards all who opposed him. It is not surprising that the Roman church should have deemed him unfitted to be its head, and that Jerome himself should, in his calmer reflections, have felt that Rome was ill-suited to him, and that in attempting, with his temper and habits, to carry out his conception of Christianity in Rome he had been vainly trying |to sing the Lord's song in a strange land| (xlv.6). Siricius, the successor of Damasus, had no sympathy with Jerome either then or in the subsequent Origenistic controversy. The party of friends on the Aventine was broken up. Jerome counsels Marcella (xliv.) to leave Rome and seek religious seclusion in the country. Paula and Eustochium preferred to go with him to Palestine. In Aug.385 Jerome embarked, with all that was dearest to him, at Portus, and in his touching and instructive letter to Asella (xlv.) bade a final farewell to Rome. Accompanied by his brother Paulinian and his friend Vincentius (cont. Ruf. iii.22), he sailed direct to Antioch. Paula and Eustochium (Ep. cviii., where all these incidents are narrated), leaving Paulina, then of marriageable age, and her young brother Toxotius, embarked at the same time, but visited Epiphanius in Cyprus on their way. The friends were reunited at Antioch, as winter was setting in. Paula would brook no delay, and, despite the inclemency of the season, they started at once for Palestine. They visited Sarepta, Acre, Caesarea, Joppa, Lydda, and Emmaus, arriving at Jerusalem early in 386. The city was moved at their coming, and the proconsul prepared a splendid reception for them in the Praetorium; but they only stayed to see the holy places, and, after visiting spots of special interest in the S. of Palestine, journeyed on into Egypt. There the time was divided between the two great objects of Jerome's life, the study of Scripture and the promotion of asceticism. At Alexandria he sat, though already grey-haired (lxxxiv.3), at the feet of Didymus, the great Origenistic teacher, whom, in contrast to his blindness, Jerome delights to speak of as |the seer.| (See in his praises the preface to the commentary on Ephesians.) Jerome had already, as we have seen, translated in part his book on the Holy Spirit; and now, at the request of his distinguished pupil, Didymus composed his Commentary on Hosea and Zechariah (Hieron. pref. to Hosea, and de Vir. Ill.109). Pausing at Alexandria only 30 days, they turned to the monasteries of Nitria, where they were received with great honour. At one time they were almost persuaded to remain in the Egyptian desert, but the attractions of the holy places of Palestine prevailed; and sailing from Alexandria to Majoma, they settled at Bethlehem, in the autumn of 386. There Jerome lived the remaining 34 years of his life, pursuing unremittingly and with the utmost success the two great objects of his life.

Bethlehem, First Period, 386-392. Monasteries. -- Their first work was to establish themselves at Bethlehem. A monastery and a convent were built, over which Jerome and Paula respectively presided (Ep. cviii.14, 19). There was a church in which they met on Sundays, and perhaps oftener (cxlvii.); and a hospice for pilgrims, of whom a vast number came from all parts to visit the holy places (Epp. xlvi. lxvi.; cont. Vigilantium, 13, 14). These institutions were mainly supported by Paula, though, towards the end of her life, when she by her profusion had become poor, their support fell upon Jerome, who, for this purpose, sold his estate in Pannonia (Ep. lxvi.). He lived in a cell (cv. and cont. Joan. Jerus.), in or close to the monastery, surrounded by his library, to which he continually added, as is shewn by his constant reference to a great variety of authors, sacred and profane, and by his account of obtaining a copy of the Hexapla from the library at Caesarea (Comm. on Titus, c.3, p.734). He describes himself as living very moderately on bread and vegetables (Ep. lxxix.4); he was not neglectful of his person, but recommended a moderate neatness of dress (lii., lx.10). We do not read of any special austerities beyond the fact of his seclusion from the world, which he speaks of as a living in the fields and in solitude, that he might mourn for his sins and gain Christ's mercy (cont. Joan. Jerus.41). He did not officiate in the services, but his time was greatly absorbed by the cares (Ep. cxiv.1) and discipline (cxlvii.) of the monastery and by the crowds of monks and pilgrims who flocked to the hospice (lxvi.14; adv. Ruf. i.31). He expounded the Scriptures daily to the brethren in the monastery. Sacred studies were his main pursuit, and his diligence is almost incredible. |He is wholly absorbed in reading,| says Sulpicius; |he takes no rest by day or by night; he is ever reading or writing something.| He wrote, or rather dictated, with great rapidity. He was believed at times to have composed 1.000 lines of his commentaries in a day (pref. to bk. ii. of Comm. on. Ephes. in vol. vii. col.507). He wrote almost daily to Paula and Eustochium (de Vir. Ill.135); and, though many of his letters were mere messages, yet almost all were at once published (Ep. xlix.2), either by friends or enemies. There were many interruptions. Besides the excessive number of ordinary pilgrims, persons came from all parts, and needed special entertainment. The agitated state of the empire also was felt in the hermitage of Bethlehem. The successive invasions of the Huns (Ep. lxxvii.8) and the Isaurians (cxiv.) created a panic in Palestine, so that, in 395, ships had been provided at Joppa to carry away the virgins of Bethlehem, who hurried to the coast to embark, when the danger passed away. These invasions caused great lack of means at Bethlehem (cxiv.1), so that Jerome and his friends had to sell all to continue the work. Amidst such difficulties his great literary works were accomplished. Immediately on settling at Bethlehem, he set to work to perfect his knowledge of Hebrew with the aid of a Jew named Bar Anina (called Barabbas by Jerome's adversaries, who conceived that through this teacher his version was tainted with Judaism; see Ruf. Apol. ii.12). Their interviews took place at night (Ep. lxxxiv.), each being afraid of the suspicions their intercourse might cause. He also learned Chaldee, but less thoroughly (pref. to Daniel, vol. ix. col.1358). When any unusual difficulty occurred in translation or exposition, he obtained further aid. For the book of Job he paid a teacher to come to him from Lydda (pref. to Job, vol. ix. col.1140); for the Chaldee of Tobit he had a rabbi from Tiberias (pref. to Tobit, vol. x.). The Chronicles he went over word by word with a doctor of law from Tiberias (pref. to Chron.). The great expense entailed was no doubt in part defrayed by Paula. At a later time, when his resources failed, Chromatius of Aquileia, and Heliodorus of Altinum, supported the scribes who assisted him (pref. to Esther, addressed to Chrom. and Hel.).

Bible Work. -- The results of his first six years' labours may be thus summed up. The commentary on Eccles. and the translation of Didymus on the Holy Spirit were completed; commentaries were written on Gal. Eph. Tit. and Philemon; the version of N.T. begun in Rome was revised; a treatise on Pss. x.-xvi. was written; and translations made of Origen's Commentaries on St. Luke and the Psalms. Jerome, who had long before felt the great importance for scriptural studies of a knowledge of the localities (pref. to Chron.), turned to account his travels in Palestine in his work on the names of Hebrew places, mainly translated from Eusebius, and gave to the world what may be called |Chips from his Workshop,| in the book on Hebrew proper names and the Hebrew questions on Gen., a work which he seems to have intended to carry on in the other books as a pendant to his translations. Further, as a preparatory work to the Vulg., he had revised the Latin version of O.T. then current (which was imperfectly made from the LXX), by a comparison of Origen's Hexapla (pref. to Joshua, vol. ix.356; pref. to Chron. vol. ix. col.1394; pref. to Job, vol. ix. col.1142; Ep. lxxi. ad Lucinium). This work, though not mentioned in the Catalogue (de Vir. Ill.135), certainly existed. Jerome used it in his familiar expositions each day (cont. Ruf. ii.24). Augustine had heard of it and asked to see it (Ep. cxxxiv., end), but it had, through fraud or neglect, been lost; and all that remains of it is Job, the Psalms, and the preface to the books of Solomon (vol. x.). The Vulgate itself was in preparation, as we find from the Catalogue; but as it was not produced for some years, what had been done thus far was evidently only preliminary and imperfect work.

Besides his work on the Scriptures, Jerome had designed a vast scheme of church history, from the beginning to his own time, giving the lives of all the most eminent men; and as a preliminary to this, and in furtherance of asceticism, he wrote Lives of MALCHUS and HILARION. The minuteness of detail in these works would have made a church history on such a scale impossible; and the credulity they shew throws doubt on Jerome's capacity for such work.

A far more important work for the purposes of the church historian is the book which is variously called the |Catalogue of Church Writers,| the |Book on Illustrious Men,| or the |Epitaphion| (though it includes men then living). Some portions are taken from Eusebius, but the design and most of the details are original. It includes the writers of N.T., and church teachers of East and West up to Jerome's own time, and even men accounted heretics and non-Christians like Seneca, whose works were of importance to the progress of human thought.

The letter which Jerome wrote in the name of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella at Rome (Ep. xlvi.), the only letter preserved from these first six years, expresses an enthusiastic view of their privileges in reading the Scriptures in the tongue and country in which they were written. The crowds who came from all parts seem to them to be so many choirs, engaged in services of praise, each in their own tongue. The very ploughmen chant Hallelujahs. Far from the Babylon of Rome, they associate with the saints of Scripture and find in the holy places the gate of heaven. This view of Palestine is always present to Jerome, however much he has to confess the actual secularization of Jerusalem (lviii.4); and it makes his Biblical work not merely one of learning but of piety.

Second Period, 393-404. -- Private letters of Jerome abound during this period, and illustrate his personal history.

To this period belong the many external difficulties at Bethlehem already mentioned. During almost the whole of 398 Jerome was ill, and again in 404-405 (lxxiv.6, cxiv.1). He was disturbed also by the controversy or schism between the monks of Bethlehem and the bp. of Jerusalem; and an injury to his hand prevented his writing. Poverty was also overtaking him. Paula had spent her fortune in lavish charity, and Jerome sent his brother Paulinianus to their former home to sell the remains of their property to support the monasteries (lxvi.14). The sad quarrel between Jerome and Rufinus began in 394; see under the controversies (infra) which occupied so much of this period.

Commentaries. -- Jerome had begun his commentaries on the Minor Prophets in 391 (de Vir. Ill.135); they form four books, and were published at long intervals up to 406. In 397 he wrote his commentary on Matthew, the last on the N.T. It was finished, with great haste and eagerness (Ep. lxxiii.10), in Lent 398, as he was recovering from an illness. After a long interval the commentary on Isaiah followed, and thereafter he wrote upon the Great Prophets only.

The Vulgate. -- That which we now call the Vulgate, and which is in the main the work of Jerome, was during his life the Bible of the learned and only by degrees won general acceptance. The editio vulgata in previous use was a loose translation from the LXX, almost every copy varying. Jerome had begun very early to read the O.T. in Gk. Here the same difficulty met him. The LXX version was confronted, in Origen's Hexapla, with those of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, and with two others called Quinta and Sexta. Where they differed, who was to decide? This question is asked by Jerome as early as the preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (381) and was constantly repeated in defence of his translation. He seems to have distinctly contemplated this work from the moment of his settlement at Bethlehem, and a great deal of the labour of his first years there may be regarded as preliminary to it. It was begun within the first few years. But, in so elaborate a work, it was impossible that the first copies should be perfect. It is probable that the whole, or larger part, was gone through at an early date and given to his friends or the public after a more mature revision, according as his health or courage allowed. He distinctly purposed to publish it from the first. Yet the actual publication was made in a fragmentary and hesitating manner. At times he speaks of portions as extorted from him by the earnest requests of his friends (pref. to Gen. vol. ix. etc.). Some parts he represents as done in extreme haste; the books of Solomon as the work of three days (pref. in vol. ix. col.1307); Tobit and Judith were each that of a single day. He shews in his prefaces extreme sensitiveness to attacks upon his work, and speaks of it often as an ungrateful task. Of the Apocrypha he translated only parts, and these very cursorily (pref. to Tobit, vol. x.), doubtless because of his comparative indifference to the Apocrypha, his opinion of which is quoted in Art. vi. of the 39 Articles, from the preface to the Books of Solomon (vol. ix. ed.1308). Samuel and Kings were published first, then Job and the Prophets, then Ezra, Nehemiah and Genesis. All these were finished in or before 393; but here occurred a break, due partly, no doubt, to unsettlement and panic caused by the invasion of the Huns in 395. In 396 the work was resumed at the entreaty of Chromatius and Heliodorus, who sent him money to support the necessary helpers (pref. to Books of Solomon). The Books of Solomon were them completed (398) and the preface indicates an intention to continue the work more systematically. But the ill-feeling excited by his translation made him unwilling to continue, and his long illness in 398 intervened. He tells Lucinius that he had then given his servants the whole except the Octateuch to copy (Ep. xlix.4). But, from whatever cause, the work was not resumed till 403-404, in which years the remainder was completed, namely, the last four books of Moses, Joshua and Judges, Ruth and Esther. His friends collected the translations into one volume, and the title of Vulgate, which had hitherto applied to the version before in use (pref. to Ezk. vol. ix. col.995, pref. to Esther, vol. ix.1503), in time came to belong to an edition which is in the main the work of Jerome.

Controversies. -- Controversial works at this period occupied a share of Jerome's energies out of all proportion to their importance.

Against Jovinian. -- Jovinian was a Roman monk, originally distinguished by extreme asceticism, who had adopted freer opinions. He put off the monastic dress and lived like other men. The book of Jovinian was sent to Jerome about the end of 393, and he at once answered it in two books. He warmly attacks Jovinian as a renegade and as a dog who has returned to his vomit.

Origenism. -- The second great controversy in which Jerome was now engaged arose about Origenism, which embraces in its wide sweep Epiphanius, bp. of Cyprus, John, bp. of Jerusalem, Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, the pope Anastasius, and above all Jerome's former friend Rufinus -- a controversy by which the churches of the East and the West were long and deeply agitated. It divides itself, as far as Jerome is concerned, into two distinct parts: the first represented by his writing against John of Jerusalem, and extending from 494-499, when peace was made between them; the second represented by three books directed against Rufinus, the first two written in 401, the third in 402.

Jerome's own relation to Origen is not difficult to understand, though it laid him open to the charge of inconsistency. He had become acquainted with his works during his first enthusiasm for Greek ecclesiastical learning and had recognized his as the greatest name in Christian literature, worthy of comparison with the greatest of classical times (see esp. Ep. xxxiii.). The literary interest was to Jerome, then as at all times, more than the dogmatic; deeply impressed by the genius and learning of the great Alexandrine, his praise, like his subsequent blame, was without reason or moderation. He spoke with entire commendation of his commentaries, and even of the Tomoi, or Chapters, which included the book peri Archon (which may be translated either On First Principles or On the Powers on which the chief controversy afterwards turned). |In his work,| he says (pref. to trans. of Origen on Jer. vol. v. col.611), |he gave all the sails of his genius to the free breath of the winds, and receding from the shore, went forth into the open sea.| It was not the peculiarities of Origen's dogmatic system, but the boldness of his genius, that appealed to the mind of Jerome. From the first he shewed a certain independence, nor did he ever give his adherence to Origen's peculiar system. He quoted without blame even such theories as the possible restoration of Satan, but never gave his personal assent to them. Even when, afterwards, he became a violent opponent of Origenism, he shewed discrimination. He continued to use Origen's commentaries, and even in some points of doctrine commended his exposition. His vehement language, however, makes him appear first a violent partisan of Origen, and later an equally violent opponent. The change, moreover, has the appearance of being the result, not so much of a great conviction, as of a fear of the suspicion of heresy.

John, bp. of Jerusalem, and Rufinus. -- During the first year of Jerome's stay at Bethlehem he was on good terms with both John the bp. and Rufinus, who had been established with Melania on Mount Olives since 377. John, who succeeded Cyril a few months before Jerome and Paula arrived in 386, was on familiar terms with Rufinus whom he ordained, and there is no sign that he was ill-disposed towards Jerome. The troubles originated in the visit to Jerusalem of a certain Aterbius, otherwise unknown (cont. Ruf. iii.33), who scattered accusations of Origenistic heresy among the foremost persons at Jerusalem, and joining Jerome with Rufinus on account of their friendship, charged them both with heresy. Jerome made a confession of his faith which satisfied this self-appointed inquisitor; but Rufinus refused to see him, and with threats bade him begone. This was apparently in 393. In 394 Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, who in his book on heresies had formally included the doctrines of Origen, visited Jerusalem, and strife broke out in the church of the Resurrection, where Epiphanius's pointed sermon against Origenism was taken as reflecting so directly upon John that the bishop sent his archdeacon to remonstrate and stop him. John, after he had delivered a long sermon against Anthropomorphism, was requested by Epiphanius, amidst the ironical applause of the people, to condemn Origenism with the same earnestness; and then Epiphanius came to the monastery at Bethlehem declaring John a heretic, and, after attempting to elicit some anti-Origenistic confession from the bishop, finally at night left his house, where he had been a guest, for the monastery. Epiphanius, convinced that John was on the verge of heresy, advised Jerome and his friends to separate themselves from their bishop; and provided for the ministrations of their church by ordaining Jerome's brother Paulinian.

John now appealed to Alexandria and to Rome against Jerome and his friends as schismatics. Theophilus of Alexandria at once took John's side, but, becoming an anti-Origenist later, opened communication with Jerome, of which the latter gladly availed himself. Jerome was thenceforward the minister of Theophilus in his communication with the West in the war against Origen; and thus completely united himself with the anti-Origenistic party. Rufinus, when he arrived in Rome with Melania in 397, found the contest about Origenism at its height, but ignorance on the subject was so great that pope Anastasius, even though induced to condemn Origen, plainly admitted in his letter to John of Jerusalem (Hieron. ii.677, Vallarsi's Rufinus [Migne's Patr. xxi.] 408) that he neither knew who Origen was nor what he had written. Rufinus being asked by a pious man named Macarius to give an exposition of Origen's tenets, made the translation of the peri Archon which is now published in Origen's works and is the only extant version. This translation was at once the subject of dispute. Jerome's friends complained that Rufinus had given a falsely favourable version. Rufinus declared that he had only used the just freedom of a critic and translator in omitting passages interpolated by heretics, who wished to make Origen speak their views, and in translating Eastern thoughts into Western idioms. But the real complaint against Rufinus rested on personal grounds. In his preface he had seemed to associate Jerome, as the translator of Origen, with Origen's work, and to shield himself under Jerome's authority. Jerome and his friends, extremely sensitive of the least reproach of heresy and having already taken a strong part against Origen, trembled for his reputation. Rufinus's preface was sent to him by Pammachius and Oceanus, with the request (Ep. lxxxii.) that he would point out the truth, and would translate the peri Archon as Origen had written it. Jerome did so, and with his new translation sent a long letter (lxxxiv.) to his two friends, which, though making too little of his former admiration for Origen, in the main states the case fairly and without asperity towards Rufinus. The same may be said of his letter (lxxxi.) to Rufinus himself, possibly in answer to one from Rufinus (|diu te Romae moratum sermo proprius indicavit|), which speaks of their reconciliation and remonstrates, as a friend with a friend, against the mention Rufinus had made of him. |There are not many,| he says, |who can be pleased with feigned praise| (|fictis laudibus|). This letter, unfortunately, did not reach Rufinus. He had gone to Aquileia with the ordinary commendation (|literae formatae|) from the pope. Siricius had died; his successor, Anastasius, was in the hands of Pammachius and Marcella (cxxvii.), who were moving him to condemn Origen. Anastasius, though ignorant on the whole subject, was struck by passages shewn him by Eusebius in Jerome's translation of the peri Archon, which had been given him by Marcella (Rufin. Apol. ii.), and proceeded to condemn Origen. He also was persuaded to summon Rufinus (Rufinus [Migne's Patr. Lat. xxi.] 403) to Rome to make a confession of his faith; and wrote to John of Jerusalem, expressing his fear as to Rufinus's intentions and his faith (see the letter in Jerome's Works, ii.677, Rufinus, 408). Jerome's friends kept his letter to Rufinus, so that Rufinus was prevented from learning Jerome's actual dispositions towards him. He only knew that the latter's friends were in some way involving him in the condemnation they had procured against Origen and which the emperors themselves had now ratified (Anastasius to John, u.s.). To Anastasius, therefore, he replied in a short letter, excusing himself from coming to Rome, but giving an explicit declaration of his faith. But from Jerome he was wholly alienated. His friend Apronianus at Rome having sent him the letter of Jerome to Pammachius and Oceanus, he replied in the document which is called his Apology, with bitter feelings against his former friend. He did not scruple to use against him the facts known to him through their former intimacy, such as the vows made in consequence of his anti-Ciceronian dream, which he declared Jerome to have broken, and he allowed himself to join in the carping spirit in which Jerome's enemies spoke against his translation of the Scriptures. This document was privately circulated among Rufinus's friends at Rome. It became partly known to Pammachius and Marcella, who, not being able to obtain a copy, sent him a description of its contents, with such quotations as they could procure. Jerome at once composed the two first books of his Apology in the form of a letter to his Roman friends. Its tone is that of one not quite willing to break through an old friendship, but its language is strong and at times contemptuous. It was brought to Rufinus at Aquileia, who answered in a letter meant for Jerome's eyes alone, which has not come down to us. From Jerome's reply we know that it was sharp and bitter, and declared his ability to produce facts which if known to the world would blast Jerome's character for ever. Jerome was estranged by extracts from Rufinus's Apology. Then Rufinus himself sent him a true copy, and the result was a final rupture. Augustine, to whom Jerome sent his book, writes (Hieron. Ep. cx.6) with the utmost sorrow at the scandal; he declares that he was cast down by the thought that |persons so dear and so familiar, united by a chain of friendship which had been known to all the church,| should now be publicly tearing each other to pieces. He writes like one who has an equal esteem for both the combatants, and only desires their reconciliation. But Jerome never ceased to speak of his former friend with passionate condemnation and contempt. When Rufinus died in Sicily in 410 he wrote: |The scorpion lies underground between Enceladus and Porphyrion, and the hydra of many heads has at last ceased to hiss against me| (pref. to Comm. on Exk.). In later years he sees the spirit of Rufinus revived in Pelagius (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), and even in letters of edification he cannot refrain from bitter remarks on his memory (Ep. cxxv.18, cxxxiii.3).

Vigilantius. -- A fourth controversy was with Vigilantius (cont. Vig. liber unus), a Spanish monk, into whom, as Jerome says, the soul of his former opponent Jovinian had passed, a controversy further embittered by mutual accusations of Origenism, and in which Jerome's violence and contemptuousness passes all bounds. Vigilantius had stayed at the monastery at Bethlehem in 396, on the introduction of Paulinus. In a letter to Vigilantius in 396, Jerome accuses him of blasphemous interpretations of Scripture derived from Origen. He treats him as a vulgar fool, without the least claim to knowledge or letters. He applies to him the proverb Ono lura, turns his name to Dormitantius, and ends by saying he hopes he may find pardon when, as Origen holds, the devil will find it. Vigilantius is said by Gennadius (de Scr. Eccl.35) to have been an ignorant man, though polished in words. But he was as far in advance of Jerome in his views of the Christian life as he was behind him in literary power. His book, written in 404, was sent by Riparius to Jerome, who replied (Ep cix.), dismissing the matter with contempt. Afterwards, probably finding the opinions of Vigilantius gaining ground, he, at the request of certain presbyters, wrote his treatise against him. It is a short book, dictated, he states, unius noctis lucubratione; his friend Sisinnius, who was to take it, being greatly hurried. Vigilantius maintained that the honour paid to the martyrs' tombs was excessive, that watching in their basilicas was to be deprecated, that the alleged miracles done there were false; that the money collected for the |poor saints at Jerusalem| had better be kept at home; that the hermit life was cowardice; and, lastly, that it would be well that presbyters should be married before ordination. Jerome speaks of these accusations as being so openly blasphemous as to require neither argument nor the production of testimonies against them, but merely the expression of the writer's indignation. He does not admit even a grain of truth in them. |If you do not honour the tombs of the martyrs,| he says, |you assert that they were not wrong in burning the martyrs.| He himself believes the miracles, and values the intercession of the saints. This is the treatise in which Jerome felt most sure he was in the right, and the only one in which he was wholly in the wrong.

Augustine. -- The exchange of letters between Jerome and Augustine, though begun with something of asperity, ended in edification. Jerome heard of Augustine soon after his conversion (386); and Augustine, eight years his junior, had a great respect (which did not prevent criticism) for Jerome and his work. Augustine's friend Alypius stayed with Jerome in 393, and Jerome heard with satisfaction of the great African's zeal for the study of Scripture and of his rising fame. In 394 Augustine, then coadjutor bp. of Hippo (succeeding in 395), having had his attention no doubt called to Jerome's works by Alypius, wrote the letter (among Jerome's, lvi.) which originated the controversy. It related to the interpretation of the dispute of St. Paul and St. Peter at Antioch, recorded in Gal. ii. The letter is written in a grave tone, but perhaps with something of assumption, considering the great position of Jerome. Augustine commends him for translating Greek commentaries into Latin, and wishes that in his translations of O.T. he would note very carefully the places in which he diverges from the LXX. He then notes that Jerome, in his Commentary on the Galatians, had maintained that the dispute was merely feigned, that Peter had pretended to act so as to incur Paul's rebuke, in order to set before the church the incongruity of a Christian continuing under Mosaic law. This appeared to Augustine to impute to the apostles an acted lie. This letter was committed, together with other works of Augustine on which Jerome's opinion was desired, to Profuturus, a presbyter, who being, before he sailed, elected to a bishopric in N. Africa, turned back, and soon after died. He had neither transmitted the letter to Jerome nor returned it to Augustine; but it was seen by others and copied, so that the attack on Jerome was widely known in the West while entirely unknown to Jerome at Bethlehem. Augustine, discovering that his letter had not reached Jerome, wrote a second (among Jerome's, lxvii.), again entering into the question, asking Jerome to confess his error and to sing a palinode for the injury done to Christian truth. Paulus, to whom this letter was committed, proved untrustworthy, and let it be circulated without being transmitted to Jerome. It was seen by a deacon, Sisinnius, who, coming to Bethlehem some five years afterwards, either brought a copy or described its contents to Jerome. Meanwhile Augustine heard, through pilgrims returning from Palestine, the state of the facts and the feelings aroused by them. He wrote a short letter to excuse himself (among Jerome's, ci.), pointing out that what he had written was not, as seemed to be supposed, a book for publication, but a personal letter expressing to a friend a difference of opinion. He begged Jerome to point out similarly any points of his writings he might think wrong, and concluded with an earnest wish for some personal converse with the great teacher of Bethlehem. Jerome replied in a letter (cii.) in which friendship struggled with suspicion and resentment. He sent some of his works, including those last written, against Rufinus. As to Augustine's works, he says he knows little of them, but intimates that he might have much to say in criticism. He insinuates that Augustine might be seeking honour by attacking him, but warns him that he too can strike hard. Augustine replied in a letter (among Jerome's, civ.) written with demonstrations of profound respect, but in which, after explaining how his first letter had miscarried, he again enters into questions of Biblical literature. He commends Jerome's new translations of N.T., but begs him not to translate O.T. from the Heb., enforcing his wish by the story of a parish in Africa being scandalized and almost broken up by its bishop reading Jonah in Jerome's new version. In this version as then read, ivy was substituted for gourd in c. iv. When the bishop read |ivy| the people rose and cried out |gourd,| till he was obliged to resort to the received version, lest he should be left without any followers. Augustine recommends Jerome to translate from the LXX, with notes where his version deviates from the received text. Jerome answers that he has never received Augustine's original letter, but has only seen what purports to be a copy. |Send me,| he says, |your letter signed by yourself, or else cease from attacking me. As to your writings, which you put forward so much, I have only read the Soliloquies and the Commentary on the Psalms, and will only say that in this last there are things disagreeing with the best Greek commentaries. Let me beg you in future, if you write to me, to take care that I am the first whom your letter reaches.| Augustine now (in 404) sent by a presbyter Praesidius authentic copies of his two original letters (written nine or ten years before), accompanied by one in which he begged that the matter might be treated as between friends, and not grow into a feud like that of Jerome and Rufinus, which he deeply lamented. On receipt of this Jerome at once wrote (Ep. civ.) a full answer to Augustine's principal letters (in Hieron. lvi. lxvii. civ. cx.), and on the question of St. Peter at Antioch appealed to the great Eastern expositors of Scripture. Augustine replied in a long letter (in Jerome's, cxvi.) on the chief question, adding many expressions tending to satisfy Jerome as to their personal relations. Jerome appears to have been more than satisfied; perhaps even to have been convinced. The only allusions in his later writings to this controversy seem to favour Augustine's view. Augustine wrote two letters to him a few years later on the origin of souls (cxxxi.), and on the meaning of the words, |He that offends in one point is guilty of all| (cxxxii.). Jerome's reply (cxxxiv.) is wholly friendly. He refers to a request in one of Augustine's former letters (civ.) for translations from the LXX, saying that these had been stolen from him, and adds, |Each of us has his gift; there is nothing in your letters but what I admire; and I wish to be understood as assenting to all you say, for we must be united in order to withstand Pelagianism.| Augustine, on his part, shewed a remarkable deference to Jerome's opinion on the origin of souls, as to which after five years he still hesitated (Hieron. Ep. cxliv.) to give a definite answer to his friend Optatus because he had not received one from Jerome; and he sent Orosius, probably referring to this very question, to sit, as Orosius himself says, at the feet of Jerome (de Lib. Arb.3). The remaining letters shew a constant increase of friendship. The two great teachers, though from somewhat different points of view, laboured together in combating Pelagianism; and, having been to each other for a while almost as heretics, stand justly side by side as canonized doctors of Latin Christianity.

Last Period, 405-420. Old Age and Troubles. -- This last period of Jerome's life was full of external dangers and towards its close agitated by controversy. In 405 the Isaurians devastated the N. of Palestine, the monasteries of Bethlehem were beset with fugitives, and Jerome and his friends were brought into great straits for the means of living. The winter was extremely cold, and Jerome was laid low by a severe illness in Lent 406 (Ep. cxiv.) which left him weak for a long time. The barbarian invasions culminated in the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410. In this last calamity, which seemed to be ushering in the end of the world (cxxiii.), Pammachius and Marcella died. Emigration from Italy to Africa and Syria set in, and the more religious among the fugitives flocked to Jerusalem and Bethlehem (pref. to bks. iii. and vii. of Comm. on Ezk.). Jerome was not unaffected by the evil political influences of the time. He represents himself as watched by enemies, who made it dangerous for him even to express his sense of the miseries of the empire. In his Commentary on the Monarchies in Daniel he reflects on the low state to which the Roman empire had fallen and its need of support from barbarians; and these words were taken as reflecting on Stilicho, the great half-Vandal general, the father-in-law and minister of Honorius, and the real ruler of the empire. Stilicho, whom Jerome afterwards speaks of (Ep. cxxiii.17) as |the half-barbarian traitor who armed the enemy against us with our own resources,| appears to have heard of Jerome's expressions in his commentary and to have taken great offence, and Jerome believed that he was meditating some revenge against him when he was put to death (|Dei judicio,| pref. to bk. xi. of Comm. on Is.) by order of his imperial relative. In the year following the sack of Rome Palestine suffered from an incursion of barbarians from which Jerome barely escaped (Ep. cxxvi.2). He was very poor (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. viii.), but made no complaint of this. His best friends had passed away -- Paula in 403, Pammachius and Marcella in 410 (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. i.). Of his Roman friends, Oceanus, Principia, and the younger Fabiola alone remained (Epp. cxx. cxxvii.); Eustochium had very possibly (as Thierry supposes) less authority than her mother in the management of the convent, and this left room for irregularities like those related in Jerome's letter (cxlvii.) to Sabinianus. Eustochium died in 418 (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.). Jerome's days were taken up by the monastery and the hospice (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. viii.) and he could only dictate his commentaries at night; he was even glad when winter came and gave him longer nights for this purpose (ib.). He was growing weak with age and frequent illnesses, and his eyesight, which had originally failed nearly 40 years before (Constantinople, 380), was so weak that he could hardly decipher Heb. letters at night (ib.). Controversy arose again with Pelagius (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bks. i.-iv.), and Jerome's relations with the bp. of Jerusalem can hardly have been smooth (Ep. cxxxvii.). On the other hand, his brother Paulinian was still with him; the younger Paula, daughter of Toxotius and Laeta (cvii. cxxxiv.), survived him and replaced her aunt Eustochium in managing the monasteries. Albina, and the younger Melania with her husband Pinianus (cxliv.), came to live with him; he had kindly relations with persons in many countries; and the only leading man of the Western church was his friend. Amidst all discouragements, he continued his Biblical studies and writings with no sign of weakness to the end.

Pelagianism. -- The Pelagian controversy was forced upon his notice. He had not antecedently formed any strong opinion on it, and had been connected in early life with some of the leading supporters of Pelagius (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. iv.). But no great question could now arise in the church without an appeal to Jerome, and his correspondence necessarily embraced this subject (Epp. cxxxiii. cxxxviii.). Orosius, the friend of Augustine, came to reside at Bethlehem in 44, full of the council of Carthage and of the thoughts and doings of his teacher; and when in 415 Pelagius and Coelestius came to Palestine, Jerome was in the very centre of the controversy. A synod was held under John of Jerusalem [[292]JOANNES (216)] in July 415 with no result; and at a synod at Diospolis in 416 Pelagius was acquitted, partly, it was believed, because the Eastern bishops could not see their way in matters of Western theology and in judging of Latin expressions. But the mind of the church generally was against him, and Jerome was called upon to give expression to it. Ctesiphon from Rome wrote to him directly on the subject and drew a long reply (cxxxiii.). Augustine addressed to him two letters on points bearing upon the subject (cxxxi. cxxxii.), and in his letter on the origin of souls insinuated that Jerome's creationism might identify him with Pelagius's denial of the transmission of Adam's sin (cxxx.6). Pelagius sometimes quoted Jerome as agreeing with him (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), sometimes attacked passages in his commentaries (id. bk. iv.) and depreciated his translation of the Scriptures (pref. to Dial. against Pelag.). Orosius, who withstood Pelagius in the synod of Jerusalem with little success, appealed (de Libero Arbitrio contra Pelagium) to Jerome as a champion of the faith. Jerome wrote, therefore, in 3 books, the dialogue against the Pelagians, an amplification of his letter to Ctesiphon, in which Atticus (the Augustinian) and Critobulus (the Pelagian) maintain the argument. It turns upon the question whether a man can be without sin if he so wills. Its tone is much milder than that of Jerome's other controversial writings, with the single exception of the dialogue against the Luciferians. But still he is dealing with a heretic, and heresy is under the ban of the church and of heaven. This terrible doom contrasts somewhat sharply with the balanced argument, in which Jerome appears not as a thorough-going predestinarian, but a |synergist,| maintaining the coexistence of the free will, and reducing predestination to God's foreknowledge of human determination (see the Dialogue, esp. i.5, ii.6, iii.18). Nevertheless, the partisans of Pelagius were irritated to bitterness and violence. A crowd of Pelagian monks attacked, partly threw down, and partly burned the monasteries of Bethlehem, some of the inmates were slaughtered, and Jerome only escaped by taking refuge in a tower stronger than the rest. This violence, however, was their last effort. A strong letter from pope Innocentius (cxxxvii.) to John of Jerusalem (who died soon after, 418) warned him that he would be held accountable for any future violence, and Jerome received a letter (cxxxvi.) assuring him of the pope's protection. Jerome's letters to Riparius (cxxxviii.), Apronius (cxxxix.), and Augustine (cxli. cxliii.), speak of the cause of Augustine as triumphant, and of Pelagius, who is compared to Catiline, leaving Palestine, though Jerusalem is still held by some powerful adversary, who is compared to Nebuchadnezzar (cxliv.). There was, however, in the East no strong feeling against Pelagius. His cause was upheld by Theodore of Mopsuestia, who in a work, of which parts are extant (in Hieron. vol. ii. pp.807-814), argues against Augustine and Jerome (whom he calls |Aram|), as |those who say that men sin by nature and not by will.| In the West a work was written by Anianus, a deacon of Celeda, of which a copy was sent to Jerome (cxliii.2) by Eusebius of Cremona, but to which he was never able to reply.

Letters. -- The letters of this period of Jerome's life are mostly ones of counsel to those who asked his advice. Among these may be mentioned that to Ageruchia (cxxiii.), exhorting her to persevere in her estate as a widow, and giving as deterrents from a second marriage some touches of Roman manners and a remarkable account of the sack of Rome; to the virgin Demetrias (cxxx.), who had escaped from the burning of Rome and fallen into the hands of count Heraclian in Africa; and to Sabinianus (cxlvii.) the lapsed deacon, who had brought disorder into the monasteries, and from which letter a whole romance of monastic life might be constructed. Jerome wrote also the Memoir of Marcella (cxxvii.), who died from ill-treatment in the sack of Rome, addressing his letter to her friend Principia; but he was too dejected and infirm to write the Epitaphium of Eustochium, who died two years before him (cdxviii.). Other letters relate to scriptural studies; cxix., to Minucius and Alexander, learned presbyters of the diocese of Toulouse, on the interpretation of the words, |We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed|; cxx., to Hebidia, a lady of a remarkable family whose father and grandfather were orators, poets, professors, and priests of Apollo Belen at Bayeux; cxl., to the presbyter Cyprian, an exposition of Ps. xc.; cxxiv., to Avitus, on the peri Archon; cxxix., on how Palestine could be called the Promised Land; and cxlvi., to Evangelus an African presbyter, containing the well-known theory of Jerome on the relative positions of bishops, priests, and deacons.

Commentaries on Greater Prophets. -- Of Bible work in his later years we have only the Commentaries on the Greater Prophets: on Daniel in 407; on Isaiah in 16 books, written in the intervals of business and illness, and issued at various times from 408-410; on Ezekiel, from 410-414; and on Jeremiah, cut short at c. xxxii. by Jerome's last illness. The prefaces to these are remarkable documents and very serviceable for the chronology of Jerome's life. Those on Ezekiel record the sack of Rome, the death of Rufinus (bk. i.), the immigration from Rome (bks. iii. and vii.), the rise of Pelagianism (bk. vi.) ; and bk. ix. of the commentary speaks of the invasion of Rome by count Heraclian. Jerome was prevented from taking up the commentary on Jeremiah till after the death of Eustochium (418), and thus his last work was written in the year (419) which intervened between Eustochium's death and his own. Yet not only is the work full of vigour, but the prefaces shew a renewal of controversial ardour against Pelagius, whom he speaks of as |Scotorum pultibus praegravatus| (bks. i. and iii.). That controversy and the business of the pilgrims (bk. iv.) shortened has time for the commentary (bk. iii.), which, though intended to be short (bk. i.), required his excuses in the last preface (bk. vi.) for its growing length.

Death. -- It is generally believed that a long sickness preceded the death of Jerome, that after 419 he was unable to work at all, that he was attended in this illness by the younger Paula and Melania; that he died, according to the Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitania, on Sept.20, 420, and that he was buried beside Paula and Eustochium near the grotto of the Nativity. His body was believed to have been subsequently carried to Rome and placed in the church of Sta. Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline. Legends, such as that, immortalized by the etching of Albert Dürer, of the lion which constantly attended him, and of the miracles at his grave, are innumerable.

Writings now Extant. -- Vallarsi's ed. contains a complete table of contents which may be usefully consulted. In our list the date of time and place at which each was composed, and the volume in Vallarsi's ed., are added.

I. BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: --

(1) From the Hebrew. -- The Vulgate of O.T., written at Bethlehem, begun 391, finished 404, vol. ix.

(2) From the LXX. -- The Psalms as used at Rome, written in Rome 383; and as used in Gaul, written at Bethlehem c.388. The book of Job, being part of the translation of LXX made between 386 and 392 at Bethlehem, the rest being lost (Ep. cxxxiv.), vol. x.

(3) From the Chaldee. -- Tobit and Judith, Bethlehem, a.d.398.

(4) From the Greek. -- The Vulgate version of N.T., made at Rome between 382 and 385.

II. COMMENTARIES: --

(1) Original. -- Ecclesiastes, vol. iii. a.d.388; Isaiah, vol. iv.410; Jeremiah, i.-xxxii.41, vol. iv.419; Ezekiel, vol. v.410-414; Daniel, vol. v.407; Minor Prophets; vol. vi. at various times between 391 and 406; Matthew, vol. vii.387; Galatians, Ephesians, Titus, Philemon, vol. vii.388: all at Bethlehem.

(2) Translated from Origen. -- Homilies on Jer. and Ezk., vol. v. Bethlehem, date doubtful; on Luke, vol. vii. Bethlehem, 389; Canticles, vol. iii. Rome and Bethlehem, 385-387.

There is also a commentary on Job, and a specimen of one on the Psalms, vol. vii.; and the translation of Origen's Homilies on Isaiah, all attributed to Jerome, vol. iv.

III. BOOKS ILLUSTRATING SCRIPTURE: --

(1) Book of Hebrew Names, or Glossary of Proper Names in O.T.; Bethlehem, 388; vol. iii.1.

(2) Book of Questions on Genesis, Bethlehem, 388; vol. iii.301.

(3) A translation of Eusebius's book on the Sites and Names of Hebrew Places, Bethlehem, 388; vol. iii.121.

(4) Translation of Didymus on the Holy Spirit, Rome and Bethlehem, 385-387; vol. ii.105.

IV. BOOKS ON CHURCH HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY (all in vol. ii.): --

(1) Book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, Bethlehem, a.d.392.

(2) Dialogue with a Luciferian, Antioch, 379.

(3) Lives of the Hermits: Paulus, Desert, 374; Malchus and Hilarion, Bethlehem, 390.

(4) Translation of the Rule of Pachomius; Bethlehem, 404.

(5) Books of ascetic controversy: against Helvidius, Rome, 383; against Jovinian, Bethlehem, 393; against Vigilantius, Bethlehem, 406.

(6) Books of personal controversy: against John, bp. of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, 398 or 399; against Rufinus, i. and ii.402, iii.404.

(7) Dialogue with a Pelagian, Bethlehem, 416.

V. GENERAL HISTORY: -- Translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, with Jerome's additions, vol. viii., Constantinople, 382.

VI. LETTERS: -- The series of letters, vol. i. Ep. i. Aquileia, 371; ii.-iv. Antioch, 374; v-xvii. Desert, 374-379; xviii. Constantinople, 381; xix.-xlv. Rome, 382-385; xlvi.-cxlviii. Bethlehem, 386-418.

The works attributed to Jerome but not genuine, which are given in Vallarsi's ed., are: A Breviary, Commentary, and Preface on the Psalms, vol. vii.; some Greek fragments, and a Lexicon of Hebrew Names, the Names of Places in the Acts, the Ten Names of God, the Benedictions of the Patriarchs, the Ten Temptations in the Desert, a Commentary on the Song of Deborah, Hebrew Questions in Kings and Chronicles, an Exposition of Job, vol. iii., three letters in vol. i., and 51 in vol. xi., and several miscellaneous writings in vol. xi., most of which are by Pelagius.

Criticism. -- (1) As a Bible translator, Jerome deserves the highest place for his clear conviction of the importance of his task and his perseverance against great obstacles. This is shewn especially in his prefaces, which are of great value as shewing his system. He took very great pains, but not with all alike. The Chronicles he went over word by word with his Hebrew teacher; Tobit he translated in a single day. His method was, first, never to swerve needlessly from the original; second, to avoid solecisms; third, at all risks, even that of introducing solecisms, to give the true sense. These principles are not always consistently carried out. There is sometimes undue laxity, which is defended in the de Optimo Genere Interpretandi; sometimes an unnecessary literalism, arising from a notion that some hidden sense lies behind the words, but really depriving the words of sense. His versions were during his lifetime both highly prized and greatly condemned. His friend Sophronius translated a great part of them into Greek and they were read in many Eastern churches in Jerome's lifetime. After his death they gradually won universal acceptance in the West, and were finally, with some alterations (mostly for the worse), stamped with the authority of the Roman church at the council of Trent. See Vallarsi's preface to vol. ix., and Zöckler, pt. II. ii. Hieronymus als Bibel Uebersetzer.

(2) As an expositor, Jerome lacks originality. His Commentaries are mostly compilations from others, whose views he gives at times without any opinion of his own. This, however, makes them of special value as the record of the thoughts of distinguished men, such as Origen. His derivations are puerile. His interpretation of prophecy is the merest literal application of it to events in the church. He is often inconsistent, and at times seems to veil his own opinion under that of another. His allusions to the events of his own time as illustrations of Scripture are often of great interest. His great haste in writing (pref. to bk. ii. of Comm. on Eph. and pref. to bk. iii. of Comm. on Gal.), his frequent weak health and weak eyes, and his great self-confidence caused him to trust his memory too much.

(3) The books on Hebrew Names, Questions on Genesis, and the Site and Names of Hebrew Places shew a wide range of interest and are useful contributions to Biblical knowledge, especially the last-named, which is often appealed to in the present day. But even here he was too ready to accept Jewish tales rather than to exercise independent judgment.

In theology, properly so called, he is weak. His first letter to Damasus on the Trinitarian controversies at Antioch shews a clear perception of what the church taught, but also a shrinking from dogmatic questions and a servile submission to episcopal authority. He accepted without question the damnation of all the heathen. His dealings with Origen shew his weakness; he surrendered his impartial judgment as soon as Origen's works were condemned. In the Pelagian controversy his slight realization of the importance of the questions contrasts markedly with the deep conviction of the writings of Augustine. In some matters, which had not been dealt with by church authority, he held his own; e.g. as to the origin of souls he is decided as a creationist. He puts aside purgatory and scoffs at millenarianism. His views on the Apocrypha and on the orders of the Christian ministry have become classical.

(4) For church history he had some considerable faculty, as is shewn by the dialogue with a Luciferian. His knowledge was great and his sympathies large, when there was no question of church condemnations. His book de Viris Illustribus is especially valuable and his defence of it against Augustine's criticism shews him to have the wider culture and greater knowledge. But the lives of the hermits incorporate legend with history. In controversy his ordinary method is to take as absolute truth the decisions of bishops and even the popular feeling in the church and to use all his powers in enforcing these. His own life and documents which give its details are his best contributions to church history.

(5) His knowledge of and sympathy with human history generally was very like that of monks of later times. He had much curiosity and considerable knowledge. His translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius shews his interest in history, but is very uncritical. The mistakes of Eusebius are not corrected but aggravated by the translator; his own additions shew that his critical faculty was not such as to guard against the admission of considerable errors; and his credulity constantly reveals itself. He nowhere shews even the rudiments of a philosophy of history. He knew both the events of his time and facts lying beyond the usual range. He was acquainted with the routes to India, and mentions the Brahmans (Epp. xxii. lxx. etc.) and Buddha (adv. Jov. i.42). Events like the fall of Rome deeply impressed him; but he deals with these very much as the monks of the middle ages dealt with the events of their time. He is a recluse, with no political sagacity and no sense of human progress.

(6) His letters are the most interesting part of his writings. They are very various; vivid in feeling and graphic in their pictures of life. The letters to Heliodorus (xiv.) on the praise of hermit life; to Eustochium (xxii.) on the preservation of virginity in the mixed life of the Roman church and world; to Asella (xlv.) on his departure from Rome; to Nepotian (lii.) on the duties of the presbyters and monks of his day; to Marcella from Paula and Eustochium (xlvi.), giving the enthusiastic description of monastic life among the holy places of Palestine; to Laeta (cvii.) on the education of a child whose grandfather was a heathen priest, whose parents were Christians, and who was herself to be a nun; to Rusticus (cxxv.), giving rules which shew the character of the monastic life in those days, -- all these are literary gems; and the Epitaphia of Blesilla (xxxix.), Fabiola (lxxvii.), Nepotianus (lx.), Paula (cviii.), and Marcella (cxxvii.) form a hagiography of the best and most attractive kind.

Style. -- His style is excellent, and he was rightly praised .as the Christian Cicero by Erasmus, who contrasts his writings with monkish and scholastic literature. It is vivid, full of illustrations, with happy turns, such as |locus a non lucendo,| Ono lupa, |fac de necessitate virtutem,| |Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est.| The scriptural quotations and allusions are often overdone and forced, but with no unreality or cant; and he never loses his dignity except in some controversial personalities.

Character. -- He was vain, and unable to bear rivals; extremely sensitive as to the estimation of his contemporaries, especially the bishops; passionate and resentful, but at times suddenly placable; scornful and violent in controversy; kind to the weak and poor; respectful in dealing with women; entirely without avarice; extraordinarily diligent, and nobly tenacious of the main objects of his life.

Influence. -- His influence grew through his life and increased after his death. |He lived and reigned for a thousand years.| His writings contain the whole spirit of the church of the middle ages; its monasticism, its contrast of sacred things with profane, its credulity and superstition, its deference to hierarchical authority, its dread of heresy, its passion for pilgrimages. To the society which was thus in a great measure formed by him, his Bible was the greatest boon which could have been given. But he founded no school and had no inspiring power; there was not sufficient courage or width of view in his spiritual legacy. As Thierry says, |There is no continuation of his work; a few more letters of Augustine and Paulinus, and night falls over the West.| A cheap popular Life of St. Jerome by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans. of his principal works is in the Lib. of Nic. and Post.-Nic. Fathers. The Bp. of Albany has in preparation (1911) a trans. of the Epistolae Selectae (ed. Hurter).

[W.H.F.]

Hierotheus, a writer
Hierotheus, a writer whose works are quoted by the
Pseudo-Dionysius, who styles him his teacher. Two long extracts are preserved in the de Divinis Nominibus of the
Pseudo-Dionysius (c.2, §§ 9, 10; c.4, §§ 15-17), and there are incidental references to him elsewhere. In the first extract (c.2, § 9 fin.) his Theological Institutes (theologikai stoicheioseis) are cited; in the second his Amatory Hymns (erotikoi humnoi). His writings most probably belong to the school of Edessa, and should be dated about the middle or end of 5th cent. In confirmation of this view Dr. Westcott has noted a statement in Assemani (Biblioth. Orient. ii.290, 291) that Stephen Bar-Sudaili, abbat of a monastery at Edessa, published a book under the name of Hierotheus to support his own mystic doctrines. Assemani says that this abbat held the doctrine of final restoration as taught by Origen, and was abused for it by Xenaias and James of Sarug, bp. of Batnae (Bibl. Or. i.303 ii.30-33; Ceillier, x.641; Westcott on Dionys. Areop. in Contemporary Rev. May, 1867). The mystical views in the works of Hierotheus and Dionysius easily lend themselves to the support of that theory. According to Assemani (ii.291), Bar-Sudaili wrote under the name of Hierotheus to prove |finem poenarum aliquando futurum, nec impios in saeculum saeculorum puniendos fore, sed per ignem purgandos; atque ita et malos daemones misericordiam consequuturos esse, et cuncta in divinam naturam transmutanda, juxta illud Pauli, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus.| In Mai's Spicilegium Romanum (iii.704-707) will be found other fragments of this writer, translated from some Arabic MSS. Their theology savours, however, more of the 4th and 5th cents. than of the 1st. But see A. L. Frothingham, Stephen Bar-Sudaili and the Book of Hierotheos (Leyden, 1886).

[G.T.S.]

Hilarianus (1) Quintus Julius, Latin Chiliast writer Hilarianus (1) Quintus Julius (Hilarion), a Latin Chiliast writer c.397, author of two extant treatises. The first, Expositum de Die Paschae et Mensis, after having disappeared for several centuries, was printed in 1712, with a dissertation by Pfaffius to prove that it was written A.D.397. Hilarian supports the Latins against the Greeks, in agreement with pope Victor and the council of Nicaea.

The second treatise, Chronologia sive Libellus de Mundi Duratione, is founded on a dispute about the date of the end of the world. The author counts 5,530 years from the Creation to the Passion; gives the world 6,000; and would therefore end it c.498.

The following is a sketch of his chronology:

From the Creation to the Deluge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2237 years.
?|;??|;?Deluge to the Call of Abraham . . . . . . . 1012?| ?|;??|;?thence to the Exodus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

430?|
?|;??|;?|;?Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

450?|
?|;??|;?|;?Zedekiah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

514?|
The Captivity lasted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70?|
Thence to the Passion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

887?|

He believes that after the close of the apocalyptic thousand years will come the loosing of Satan, the seducing of the nations Gog and Magog, the descent of fire from heaven upon their armies; then the second resurrection, the judgment, the passing away of the old things and the bringing in of the new heavens and new earth; |impii in ambustione aeterna; justi autem cum Deo in vita aeterna| (c.19). His style is b arbarous. La Bigne, Biblioth. Vet. Patr.1609, t. vii.; 1618, t. v. pt. i.; 1654, t. vii.; 1677, t. vii. Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. col.1094-1114; Cave, i.252; Ceillier, vi.288. A new ed. of de Mundi Duratione was pub. by C. Frisk in Chronica Minora (Leipz.1892).

[W.M.S. AND J.G.]

Hilarion (1), hermit of Palestine
Hilarion (1), a hermit of Palestine (d.371). Jerome wrote his Life in 390, quoting Epiphanius, Hilarion's disciple. Jerome certainly considered his Lives of the Hermits as historical (Vit. Malchi, i.); but the marvels of the Life of Hilarion have induced some to believe it to be a mere romance (Israel in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for 1880, p.128, but see Zöckler's Jerome, 179). No attempt is made in this art. to separate fact from fiction. The Life of Hilarion in any case shews the ideal on which monasticism was nourished in the 4th cent.

Hilarion was born at Thabatha, 5 miles S. of Gaza, c.300, of heathen parents, who sent him for education to Alexandria. There he shewed great talents and proficiency in rhetoric, which then comprehended nearly the whole of a liberal education. He was of a disposition which made him beloved by all. He became a Christian, and, turning from the frivolous pleasures of the circus and theatre, spent all his leisure in the assemblies of the church. Hearing of the monastic retreat of Anthony, he became his disciple for a time, but found that the multitude who resorted to Anthony made life with him a city life rather than one of retirement. Though but fifteen years old, he determined to become a hermit. He returned to Palestine and found his parents dead, gave away his goods to his brothers and the poor, and went to live in a desert place 7 miles from the Christian city of Majoma near Gaza. The boy hermit was clad in a sackcloth shirt, which he never changed till it was worn out, a cloak of skins which Anthony had given him, and a blanket such as peasants wore. His daily sustenance was 15 carices (a sort of figs). He cultivated a little plot of ground and made baskets of rushes, so as not to be idle. His disordered fancy summoned up a thousand temptations of Satan, but he overcame them all by calling on the name of Christ. He dwelt 12 years in a little cabin made by himself of woven reeds and rushes; after that in a but only 5 feet high, still shewn when Jerome was in Palestine, and more like a sepulchre than a house.

The fame of his sanctity spread rapidly and he was reputed to be a worker of miracles and an exorcist. Men of all ranks (whose names and abodes are circumstantially recorded) suffering from hysteric affections, then attributed to demons, were healed. An officer of Majoma, whose duty it was to rear horses for the Circensian games and who had been always beaten through a spell laid upon his chariot by the votaries of Marnas, the idol of Gaza, won the race when the saint had poured water upon his chariot wheels. Hilarion had many disciples, whom he formed into societies and went on circuits to visit them; and many stories were told of his shrewdness and penetration in rebuking their weaknesses.

But the crowds who flocked about him made him feel no longer a hermit; and in his 63rd year, the year of the death of Anthony (which was miraculously made known to him), he resolved to set out on his wanderings. Men crowded round him to the number of 10,000, beseeching him not to depart. Business ceased throughout Palestine, the minds of men being wholly occupied with hopes and fears about his departure; but he left them, and with a few monks, who seem soon to have left him, he went his way, never to return. He first turned towards Babylon, then to Egypt. He fled to the Oasis, and afterwards sailed for Sicily. There he lay hid for a time; but his disciple Hesychius at last discovered him. He again set forth in search of solitude; but wherever he went his miracles betrayed him. He at length arrived in Cyprus, the home of his friend Epiphanius. There he found a solitary and inaccessible place, still called by his name, where he lived the last three years of his life, often in the company of Hesychius and Epiphanius. His body was buried in the grounds of a lady named Constantia, but Hesychius disinterred it, and carried it to Majoma in Palestine. Constantia died of grief, but the translation caused joy throughout Palestine, where its anniversary was observed as a festival. Vita S. Hilarionis, in Jerome's Works vol. ii.13-40, ed. Vall.; Soz. iii.14, vi.32; Vit. Patrum, lib. v. c.4, § 15, p.568, in Migne's Patr. Gk. vol. lxxiii. His name occurs in the Byzantine Calendar, Oct.21, as |our Father Hilarion the Great.|

[W.H.F.]

Hilarius (7) Pictaviensis, saint
Hilarius (7) Pictaviensis, St. (Hilary of Poictiers), d. a.d.368.

Authorities. -- (1) His own writings. These furnish so much information that the biography in the Benedictine ed. of Hilary's works is mainly drawn from them. (2) Hieron. de Viris Illustribus (seu Scriptorum Eccles. Catalogus), c.100. Also in Esaiam, c. lx., in Psalm. lviii. (A.V. lix.), in the prooemium in lib. ii. Comm. ad Gal. (3) St. Augustine, de Trinitate, lib. x. c.6, lib. xv. c.2. (4) Cassian, de Incarnatione, lib. viii. (5) St. Gregory of Tours, de Gloriâ Confessorum, c.2. (6) Fortunatus, whose identification is uncertain. [[293]FORTUNATUS (17) and (18).] (7) Cassiodorus, Institut. Divin. lib. i. c.16.

Life. -- Hilary is believed to have been born of illustrious stock in Poictiers. St. Jerome (in Gal.) distinctly asserts this, but some authorities name more vaguely the province of Aquitaine, rather than the capital. He enjoyed a good education in the Latin classics, and evidently was specially fond of the writings of Quintilian.

About a.d.150, Hilary, then a married man but, it would seem, still young, appears to have become a Christian. He depicts himself as gradually rising first above the attractions of ease and plenty; then aiming at knowledge of truth and the practice of virtue. The books of Moses and the Psalms gave him abundant help in his desire to know God; in his consciousness of weakness the writings of apostles and evangelists aided him, more especially the Gospel of St. John, with its clear and emphatic teaching on the incarnation of the co-eternal Son. His conversion was essentially due to the study of Holy Scripture.

After his baptism he became an edifying example of a good Christian layman. He must have remained a layman for some few years. His wife's name is unknown, but a daughter, his only child, was called Abra (al. Apra seu Afra). About 353 the see of Poictiers became vacant by death. The popular voice fixed upon Hilary as the new bishop, and he was raised per saltum to the episcopate. He amply justified the choice.

Two years after his consecration a visit from St. Martin, which was regarded as a compliment to the orthodoxy and zeal of Hilary, proved a prelude to an active struggle against the Arian party in Gaul, then headed by Ursacius, Valens, and Saturninus, of whom Saturninus occupies, in the writings of the orthodox, an evil pre-eminence, being represented as immoral, violent, and apt to seek the aid of the civil power against the defenders of the creed of Nicaea. Hilary unites with Sulpicius Severus in censuring Saturninus more than his comrades. The course pursued by Ursacius and Valens, though less violent, was extremely fitful and uncertain, and a majority of the bishops of Gaul, led by Hilary, formally separated themselves from the communion of all three. Many even of those who had leant towards Arianism now threw in their lot with Hilary, who received them on condition that they should be approved by the confessors then suffering exile. At a council at Béziers, in Languedoc, Saturninus probably presiding, Hilary (with some other orthodox bishops) was present, but declares that he was refused a hearing. The emperor Constantius received from Saturninus an account of this gathering, and at once resolved to banish to Phrygia Hilary and one of his allies, St. Rhodanus, bp. of Toulouse. Hilary believed that the accusation laid against him before the emperor involved a charge of gross impropriety of conduct. As this event occurred soon after the council of Béziers and before that of Seleucia, its date is assigned to the middle of 356. During this exile of somewhat more than three years Hilary had a good deal of liberty and much enforced leisure. He employed it in examining the condition of religion in Asia Minor, forming an exceedingly unfavourable impression, especially as regarded his episcopate, and in composition and an attempt to remove misunderstandings, especially between the bishops of the East and those of Gaul; for the Gallicans imagined all in Asia to be sheer Arians, while the Orientals supposed their brethren in Gaul to be lapsing into Sabellianism. Hilary's treatise de Synodis belongs to this period (358 or 359) and also his great work de Trinitate.

The fourth year (359) of Hilary's exile witnessed the council of Rimini in the West and that of Seleucia in the East. The emperor apparently intended the decisions of these two assemblies, if accordant, to be conjointly regarded as the decree of one oecumenical council. Hilary was compelled by the secular authorities to attend that of Seleucia, Constantius himself having convoked it. He found there three sections: the orthodox, semi-Arian, and ultra-Arian or Anomoean. Although his presence was of great service in explaining the true state of things in Gaul, the language of the Acacians so shocked him that he retired from the assembly. These Anomoeans were nevertheless condemned there.

From Seleucia Hilary went to Constantinople and was granted an interview with the emperor. Here the Arians, having joined the Anomoeans, were in great force, and, having gathered another council in the Eastern capital, tried to reverse their failure at Seleucia. A challenge from Hilary to discuss the questions at issue publicly, in presence of the emperor, on the evidence of Holy Scripture, was, as he informs us, declined; and Constantius sent his prisoner back to Gaul, without formally annulling the sentence of banishment or allowing him perfect liberty. The energies of Hilary in Gaul were chiefly concerned with the Arians, but his acts (though by no means all his writings) in Phrygia with the semi-Arians. His attitude towards these two forms of error was by no means identical. Arianism he regarded as a deadly heresy, with which anything like compromise was impossible. But with semi-Arianism, or at any rate with certain leading semi-Arians, he thought it quite possible to come to an understanding; and it will be seen in the account of his works how earnestly he strove to act as a peacemaker between them and the supporters of the creed of Nicaea. The three succeeding years (a.d.360-362) were partly occupied by his rather dilatory journey homeward, and after his return by efforts which, though of a conciliatory character, all aimed at the restoration of the faith as set forth at Nicaea. His joy at reaching Poictiers (where he was warmly welcomed) and at finding in health his wife, his daughter, and his disciple St. Martin, was dashed by the, scenes witnessed during his progress. Constantius had banished all bishops who had refused to accept the formula promulgated at Rimini (Socr. H. E. ii.37; confirmed by Soz. iv.19, and by St. Jerome in his treatise adv. Luciferianos). Hilary and his more ardent friends were not prepared at once to refuse communion to all who had been betrayed into accepting the Riminian decrees. He gathered in different parts of Gaul assemblies of bishops for mutual explanation, apparently with great success. Hilary's former opponent, Saturninus, bp. of Arles, vainly attempted to thwart this work, and Saturninus soon found himself deserted and practically, perhaps even formally, excommunicated by the Gallican episcopate.

Hilary now ventured, despite the unrepealed sentence of banishment, to journey into N. Italy and Illyria, to bring these provinces into spiritual conformity with Gaul. He arrived in Italy a.d.362 and was greatly encouraged and assisted by St. Eusebius of Vercelli. These two friends, especially in remote districts, into which a fair statement of the points at issue had not penetrated, created a considerable impression, though not equal to that produced in Gaul. Possibly Lucifer of Cagliari proved an obstacle. That this ardent and ultra-Athanasian supporter of orthodoxy disapproved of one of the conciliatory manifestos of Hilary will be seen below; and as on another ground he had broken with Eusebius and was opposed to all communion with any who had accepted the decrees of Rimini, he could not have viewed their career with satisfaction.

Hilary, nevertheless, remained in Italy until the late autumn of 364. Valentinian, who became emperor in Feb.364, found him at Milan in November. A serious altercation between Hilary and Auxentius, bp. of Milan, attracted his attention. The generally charitable tone adopted by Hilary towards his ecclesiastical opponents warrants our accepting his unfavourable report of Auxentius. According to Hilary, the profession of the creed of Nicaea made by Auxentius was thoroughly insincere, though he persuaded Valentinian that he was acting in good faith; and, as a natural result, Hilary was commanded to return to Gaul and at once obeyed, but to the bishops and the church at large made known his own convictions respecting the real character of the bp. of Milan.

Hilary spent more than three years at Poictiers after his return from Italy. These years, especially the last two, were comparatively untroubled. He died calmly on Jan.13, 368, though in the Roman service-books his day is Jan.14, so as not to interfere with the octave of the Epiphany.

Writings. -- I. EXEGETICAL. -- (1) Exposition of the Psalms (Commentarii in Psalmos). -- The comments embrace Ps. i., ii.; ix.-xiii. (and perhaps xiv.); li.-lxix.; xci.-cl. (The numbers are the Vulgate reckoning, e.g. li. is lii., and lxix. is lxx. in A.V.) The treatment is not critical, but reveals a deeply sincere and high-toned spirit. Jerome's translation was yet to come when Hilary wrote. As was natural, he leant mainly and somewhat too confidently upon the LXX, but took full advantage of the comments of Origen. He seeks a via media between the literal sense, and that reference of everything to Christ which marks some later commentators, both patristic and medieval.

(2) Commentarii in Matthaeum. -- This is the earliest gospel commentary in the Western church; all previous ones being either, like that of Origen, in Greek, or, if in Latin; only partial, as some tractates of St. Cyprian. In the next century the work of Hilary was somewhat overshadowed by the commentaries produced by the genius of St. Augustine and the learning of St. Jerome in the West, and by the eloquence of St. Chrysostom in the East. Although he may have made some use of the writings of Origen, there is much that is curious and sometimes acute as well as devout that seems to be really his own. Jerome and Augustine frequently quote it. It was probably composed before his banishment to Phrygia in 356.

On the expressions concerning divorce (Matt. v.31, 32), Hilary regards Christian marriage as absolutely indissoluble. His endeavours to solve difficulties, such as that of the genealogies of our Lord, indicate a real willingness to face them and are not devoid of acuteness. On |the brethren of the Lord| Hilary uses the powerful argument that Christ would not have committed the Virgin Mother to the care of St. John if she had had children of her own, and he adopts the view, usually connected with the name of Epiphanius, that they were children of Joseph by a former wife.

Hilary's respect for the LXX led him to embrace the Alexandrian rather than the Palestinian canon of O.T. He occasionally cites some portions of the Apocrypha (as Judith, Wisdom, and Maccabees) as Scripture. He is earnest in urging the study of Scripture, and lays much stress on the need of humility and reverence for reading them with profit. Both the Word and the Sacraments become spiritual food for the soul.

II. DOGMATICAL. -- Libri XII. de Trinitate. -- For de Trinitate some copies read contra Arianos, others de Fide, and others some slight varieties of a like kind. But de Trinitate appears on the whole the most suitable; and as Hilary's is the most ancient extant exposition of St. Matthew by a Latin father, so the de Trinitate is the first great contribution, in Latin, to the discussion of this great dogma. Bk. i. treats of natural religion, and how it leads up to revelation. Bk. ii. especially discusses the baptismal formula (Matt. xxviii.19); bk. iii. the union of the two natures in Christ; bk. iv. that this co-existence of two natures does not derogate from the unity of His Divine Person. Bk. v. urges, as against heretics, the testimony of the prophets (ex auctoritatibus propheticis) in favour of the propositions of bk. iv. Bk. vi. is mainly occupied with refutations of Sabellian and Manichean doctrines. Bk. vii. shews how the errors of Ebionites, Arians, and Sabellians overthrow each other, thus illustrating a principle asserted in bk. i. § 26: |Lis eorum est fides nostra.| Bk. viii. contains a demonstration of the unity of God, and shews that it is nowise affected by the Sonship of Christ. Bk. ix. replies to the Arian appeal to certain texts, e.g. Mark xiv.32, Luke xviii.19, John v.19, xiv.28, xvii.3. Bks. x. and xi. similarly discuss, e.g., Matt. xxvi.38, 39, 46, Luke xxiii.46, John xx.17, and I. Cor. xv.27, 28. Bk. xii. is also expressly written against Arianism. It included a passage of much beauty, which bears a slight resemblance to the devout and eloquent pleading of Wisd. ix: The work is a longer, more methodical, and more consecutive anti-Arian argument than Athanasius himself found time to indite. Viewed intellectually, it must perhaps be ranked above Hilary's commentary on Scripture. Its recognition of the rights of reason as well as of faith, combined with its sense of human ignorance and of our need of humility, its explanation of many difficulties and of the meaning of the terms employed; the endeavour (though not always successful) to adapt to his subject the imperfect medium of Latin, its many felicitous descriptions, both of the temper in which we ought, and the spirit in which we ought not, to approach the study of these mysteries; the mode of his appeals to Holy Scripture, -- all form very striking features. The book evidently produced a great impression. A high compliment is paid it by the historian Socrates: |Both [i.e. Hilary and Eusebius of Vercelli] nobly contended side by side for the faith. Hilary, who was an eloquent man, set forth in his book the dogmas of the Homoousion in the Latin tongue . . . and powerfully confuted the Arian dogmas| (H . E. iii.10). It marks an epoch in the history of dogmatic theology in the Western church. Its influence declined in the next century and throughout the earlier and later middle ages. About 416, some 56 years after its publication, the 15 books de Trinitate of the great bp. of Hippo appeared. St. Augustine became the doctor par excellence of the West, and the labours of Hilary, most effective at their appearance, became somewhat neglected and obscured. The errors of Pelagianism, perhaps some anticipations of Nestorianism, had certainly by the time of Augustine tended to bring into clearer relief some particular phases and elements of Christian doctrine. Development in this sense is fully recognized by the Lutheran Dorner and by the Anglican Prof. Hussey. Nor can it be called a novel theory. |By the very events,| writes the historian Evagrius, |by which the members of the church have been rent asunder have the true and faultless dogmas (ta ortha kai amometa dogmata) been the more fully polished and set forth, and the Catholic and apostolic church of God hath gone on to increase and to a heavenward ascent| (H. E. i.11). |Many things,| says Augustine himself, |pertaining to the Catholic faith, while in course of agitation by the hot restlessness of heretics, are, with a view to defence against them, weighed more carefully, 'understood more clearly, and preached more earnestly; and the question mooted by the adversary hath become an occasion of our learning.| The intentions of Hilary were so thoroughly good that both his studies of Holy Scripture and the influence of the three later oecumenical councils would doubtless have saved him from some serious mistakes, if he had lived to hear of their decisions. It is true, as the Benedictine editor points out, that Hilary's note upon Ps. liii.8 condemns not only Apollinaris, but (by anticipation) Nestorius and Eutyches as well. Nevertheless, such mistakes as Hilary did make are all connected with the subject, which has been summed up in so masterly a manner by Hooker (E. P. bk. v. cc. lii.-liv., esp. § 10 of liv.), viz. the union of the two natures in the one divine personality of Christ. The chief of these mistakes are as follows: In de Trinitate, bk. x., Hilary seems to approach to a denial of the truth that the Incarnate Lord took man's nature from His Virgin Mother, of her substance. This is probably only an incautious over-statement of the article, |He was conceived of the Holy Ghost.| For the language in other passages of this book and on Pss. cxxxviii. and lxv. implies a complete acceptance of the Homo ex substantiâ Matris. Some laxity of usage appears in regard to the terms Verbum and Spiritus. Certainly the former word seems necessary instead of the latter in the phrase (bk. x.) |Spiritus sanctus desuper veniens naturae se humanae carne immiscuit.| Dom Coutant points out similar confusion of language in Tertullian and Lactantius, and even in St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian. St. Gregory and St. Athanasius seem inclined to palliate it.

A more serious error is Hilary's apparent want of grasp of the truth of our Lord's humanity in all things, sin alone excepted. At times he seems to speak of our Lord's natural body as if endued with impossibility (indolentia), and of His soul as if not obnoxious to the human affections of fear, grief, and the like. This and the other mistakes of Hilary are more or less palliated by Lanfranc, by the two great schoolmen Peter Lombard and Aquinas, and by Bonaventure. Hilary also meets with indulgence from Natalis Alexander; and, above all, is defended by his Benedictine editor, Dom Coutant, who, as Cave justly remarks, |naevos explicare, emollire et vindicare satagit.| A sort of tradition was handed down to Bonaventure by a schoolman, William of Paris, that Hilary had made a formal retractation of his error concerning the indolentia, which he had ascribed to our Lord. This seems very doubtful; nevertheless, the language of his later books, e.g. on the Pss., appears to recognize the reality of both the mental and bodily sufferings of Christ.

III. POLEMICAL. -- (1) Ad Constantium Augustum Liber Primus. -- This address, probably Hilary's earliest extant composition, is a petition to the emperor -- evidently written before Hilary's exile, at the close of 355 or early in 356 -- for toleration for the orthodox in Gaul against the persecution of Arian bishops and laymen. These assaults Hilary represents as both coarse and cruel. He names some supporters of Arianism, both in the East and in Gaul. Among the latter, Ursacius and Valens occupy a painful prominence. He urges that it is even on political grounds a mistake for the emperor to allow such proceedings; among his Catholic subjects will be found the best defenders of the realm against internal sedition and barbarian invasion. The excellent tone of this address is admitted on all sides.

(2) Ad Constantium Augustum Liber Secundus. -- This second address is subsequent to Hilary's exile, having been presented to the emperor in 360. Hilary protests his innocence of all charges brought against him. He is still in effect a bishop in Gaul, ministering to his flock through the clergy. He would gladly meet the man whom he regards as the author of his exile, Saturninus, bp. of Arles. He is anxious to plead for the faith in the council about to be summoned. He will argue from Holy Scripture, but warns the emperor that every heretic maintains his creed to be agreeable to Scripture. He is deeply conscious of the injury wrought to Christianity in the sight of the outer world by the distractions of so many rival councils and professions of faith.

(3) Contra Constantium Augustum Liber. -- This book is addressed to the bps. of Gaul. Jerome is almost certainly mistaken in asserting its composition to be later than the death of Constantius. Internal evidence sufficiently confutes the idea, though its existence probably did not become widely known until after that event (361). Hilary's tone is now utterly changed. He has given up all hope of influencing Constantius. The emperor, too, on his side, has altered the traditional line of policy against opponents. He is here charged, not with persecution, but with the enticements of bribes, of good dinners, of flatteries and invitations to court. Hilary appears to have laid aside his usual self-restraint, perhaps to have lost his temper, and to have forgotten his usual respectfulness and charity of language. Constantius has become, in his eyes, an Anti-christ, who would fain make a present of the world to Satan. The entire letter shews that Hilary had lost all hope of any aid to the faith being granted by Constantius, and it is at least just to give its due weight to the remark of Mohler that, |if we drive men to despair, we ought to be prepared to hear them speak the language of despair.|

(4) De Synodis Fidei Catholicae contra Arianos et
praevaricatores Arianis acquiescentes; also occasionally referred to as de Fide Orientalium; and sometimes, though less frequently, as de Synodis Graeciae, or even simply as Epistola. Internal evidence furnishes a satisfactory approximation to the date of its composition, viz. in 358 or very early in 359. It is a letter from Hilary, an exile in Phrygia, to his
brother-bishops in Gaul, who had asked for an explanation of the numerous professions of faith which the Orientals seemed to be putting forth. Hilary, although (as we have seen from his subsequent second letter to Constantius) deeply conscious of the harm wrought by these proceedings, wrote back a thorough Irenicon, for such must the de Synodis among all his writings be especially considered. Praising his Gallic brethren for firmness in opposing Saturninus and for their just condemnation of the second formula proposed at Sirmium, he desires that they and their brethren in Britain (provinciarum Britanniaram episcopi) should come to Ancyra or to Rimini in a conciliatory frame of mind. Just as the orthodox Homoousion may be twisted into Sabellianism, even so may the unorthodox. Homoiousion be found patient of a good interpretation. It may be shewn to those well disposed that, rightly understood, complete similarity in reality involves identity. The faith professed at Sardica was, he maintains, substantially sound. It asserted the external origin of the Son from the substance of the Father, and condemned the heresy of Photinus, |quae initium Dei filii ex partu Virginis mentiebatur.| Hilary appeals to the more peace-loving among the semi-Arian bishops to accept both terms in their true sense. |Date veniam, Fratres, quam frequenter poposci. Ariani non estis; cur negando homoousion censemini Ariani?| (§ 88). Here comes in that remarkable statement, that he had never, before his exile, heard the Nicene Creed, but had made it out for himself from the Gospels and other books of N.T.

A peacemaker is often suspected on one side, sometimes upon both. His first letter to Constantius, his commentary on St. Matthew, his confessorship as shewn in his exile, did not save Hilary from suspicion. By some he was held to have conceded too much to the semi-Arians. This opinion was voiced by Lucifer of Cagliari, the earnest nut somewhat harsh-minded representative of that extreme wing which might be called more Athanasian than Athanasius. Some apologetic notes, shewing much courtesy and gentleness, appended by Hilary to a copy sent to Lucifer, were first published in the Benedictine ed. (Paris, 1693).

(5) Liber contra Auxentium. -- Written a.d.365, under Valentinian, who had become emperor in 366. Hilary was convinced that the profession of orthodoxy made by Auxentius was thoroughly insincere. The emperor accepted the position avowed by Auxentius; entered into communion with him, and ordered Hilary to leave Milan. Hilary obeyed at once, but, as the sole resource left him, published this address to the church at large. Hence its other titles, viz. contra Arianos vel Auxentium Mediolanensem, and Epistola ad Catholicos et Auxentium. It forms a curious commentary upon church history by bringing into vivid relief the utterly changed character of the temptations to which Christians were now exposed as compared with those of the ante-Nicene period. Hilary's view must be considered a rather one-sided one. He sees clearly the evils of his own day, but hardly realizes what must have been the trials of the times of Nero, Decius, and Galerius. The concluding part makes out a strong case against Auxentius. It is difficult to believe that he was not an Arian at heart. Hilary, like some of his contemporaries, declares that the ears of the people have become purer than the hearts of the bishops. He begs those who shrink from breaking off communion with Auxentius, whom he calls an angel of Satan, not to let their love of mere walls and buildings seduce them into a false peace. Antichrist may seat himself within a church; the forests and mountains, lakes and prisons, are safer. It must be remembered, in palliation of Hilary's strong language respecting the bp. of Milan, that he regarded him not as an open foe, but as a betrayer of truth by false pretences. Rufinus, who speaks of Hilary as a |confessor fidei Catholicae,| entitles this work |librum instructionis plenissimae.|

(6) Fragmenta Hilarii. -- These fragments were first published in 1598 by Nicolaus Faber, who got them from the library of Father Pithou. They possess considerable value in the elucidation of the history of the period embraced by Hilary's episcopate. It is claimed that they are the remnants of a book by Hilary mentioned by Rufinus, and described by Jerome as Liber contra Valentem et Ursacium, which contained a history of the councils of Rimini and Seleucia. On this book Hilary expended much labour, having begun it in 360 and completed it in 366. The 15 fragments occupy some 80 folio pages. They are, with one exception, recognized as genuine by Tillemont and by Ceillier. Whether, however, all the other documents cited in these fragments can be depended upon has been disputed. Respecting the genuineness of the commentaries given by Dom Pitra, opinions may fairly differ; and happily there is in that case no disturbing influence at work as there is in the case of these fragments. If we accept them as authentic, the case against LIBERIUS is certainly darkened. But this is precisely the conclusion which certain modern critics (such as, e.g., the anonymous editor of Dom Ceillier) are for very obvious reasons most anxious to avoid.

(7) Epistola ad Abram Filiam suam (c.358). -- Hilary, during his exile, learnt that there was some prospect of his daughter Abra, though only in her 13th year, being sought in marriage. He draws a mystic portrait of the heavenly bridegroom, which is evidently intended to suggest the superiority of a religious celibacy, but leaves her an entirely free choice, only desiring that the decision should be really her own. He encloses a morning and an evening hymn. On any difficulties in the letter or the hymns, Abra is to consult her mother. The Hymnus matutinus, a very brief one, is still extant. The Hymnus vespertinus is more disputed, but Cardinal Mai makes a fair case for it, though it does not satisfy Dom Coutant and Dom Ceillier. Two other hymns by Hilary, commencing respectively |Hymnum dicat turba fratrum| (a hymn on the life of our Lord) and |Jesus refulsit omnium| (on the Epiphany) are given by Thomassy in his Hymnarium. Dom Pitra gives some verses of considerable beauty on our Lord's childhood, which seem to be Hilary's. The letter to Abra is considered doubtful by some critics, and rejected by Cave, but upon insufficient evidence.

The best ed. of Hilary is the Benedictine by Coutant (Paris, 1693), or its reprint with a few additions by Maffei (Verona, 1730). The de Trinitate is in Hurter's Ss. Pat. Opusc. (Innsbrück, 1888).

In conclusion, it must be observed that, though Hilary in his de Trinitate (lib. vi.3638) speaks of Peter's confession as the foundation of the church, he, in other writings, more especially in his commentary on the Psalms, is inclined to make Peter himself, whom he terms caelestis regni janitorem, the foundation. In the fragmenta we find a letter from the fathers of Sardica to pope Julius, which certainly does refer to the Roman see as the head see. If Hilary approved of this document, he may very probably have allowed to Rome a primacy, at any rate, in the West. But this is a somewhat slender foundation to build a superstructure upon; and it is singular to find Ceillier's editor, in his anxiety to damage the authority of the fragmenta, somewhat injuring the credit of the only one brief sentence in the extensive works of Hilary which can be cited as a recognition, however indirect, of the Roman primacy (Ceillier, iv. p.63, note). In practice Hilary did not often take his stand upon authority. The metropolitan see of Arles was in his time occupied by the Arian Saturninus, Hilary's chief opponent in his earlier day. He had not been long bishop when, by force of character, will, intellect, and confessorship, he came into the first rank of champions. The idea of controversy being settled by the fiat of any one bishop, whether of Rome or elsewhere, had never dawned upon his mind. No leave was asked when he descended into Italy to confront Auxentius. A cheap popular Life of Hilary of Poictiers, by J. G. Cazenove, is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, and a selection of his works is in the Lib. of Nic. and Post Nic. Fathers. Cf. also an art. in Journ. of Theol. Stud. Apr.1904, by A. J. Mason on |The First Latin Christian Poet.|

[J.G.C.]

Hilarius Arelatensis, saint, bp. of Arles
Hilarius (17) Arelatensis (Hilary of Arles), St., bp. of Arles and metropolitan.

Authorities.. -- (1) References to himself in his biography of his predecessor, Honoratus of Arles. (2) Vita Hilarii, usually assigned to St. Honoratus, bp. of Marseilles, a disciple of Hilary (Boll. Acta SS.5; Mai. ii.25). (3) Gennadius, Illust. Vir. Catal. § 67. (4) St. Leo (Ep.89, al.10). (5) Councils of Riez, 439, Orange and Vaison, 442, Rome, 445 (Labbe, Concil. t. i. pp.1747, 1783), Vienne, 445 (Natalis Alexander, Hist. Ecclesiastica, t. v. p.168, art. viii. de Concilio Romano in causâ Hilarii Arelatensis). (6) Notices of St. Hilary are also to be found in the writings of St. EUCHERIUS (who dedicated to him his book de Laude Eremi), of St. Isidore, of Sidonius Apollinaris, and others; and very specially in certain writings of St. Prosper and St. Augustine, to which references will be found below.

The place of his birth, probably in 401, was apparently that part of Gallia Belgica called later Austrasia. He was of noble family. His education was, according to the standard of the age, a thoroughly liberal one, including philosophy and rhetoric. That in rhetoric he became no mean proficient is proved by the graceful style of the one assured composition of his which is extant.

The early ambition of Hilary's mind lay in the direction of secular greatness. Both station and culture gave him every prospect of success, and he appears to have ably discharged the duties of some dignified offices in the state, though we are not informed of their precise nature. He must have been very young when the example and the entreaties of his friend and kinsman Honoratus of Arles induced him to renounce all secular society for the solitude of the isle of Lérins. He sold his estates to his brother, and gave the proceeds partly to the poor, partly to some monasteries which needed aid. At Lérins he became a model monk in the very best and highest sense; but after a period probably not exceeding two years his friend Honoratus, being chosen (a.d.426) bp. of Arles, obtained the comfort of Hilary's companionship in his new duties. Honoratus died Jan.16, 429, and Hilary at once prepared to return to Lérins, but the citizens of Arles compelled him to occupy the vacant see. As bishop, he lived in many respects like a monk, though by no means as a recluse. Simply clad, he traversed on foot the whole of his diocese and province. At home he dwelt in a seminary with some of his clergy. For the redemption of captives he earned money by tilling the earth and planting vines,. and did not scruple to sell on emergencies sacred church vessels, substituting others of meaner material. He continued his studies, was constant in meditation and prayer, and as a preacher produced a great impression, by his excellent matter and delivery.

The canons passed by the councils of Riez and of Orange, over which Hilary presided in 439 and 442 respectively, were in the main of a disciplinary character; at Riez a special canon, the seventh, insisted strongly on the rights of the metropolitan. It seems undeniable that Hilary was inclined to press the claims of this office to a degree which amounted to usurpation; partly, perhaps, in regard to the geographical extent of the jurisdiction claimed by him for the see of Arles, and certainly with respect to the rights of the clergy, the laity, and the comprovincial bishops.

But before dealing with his important contest with pope Leo, we must interpose a few words on the semi-Pelagianism of which he has been accused. In 429, the year in which he became bishop, two letters (225 and 226 in the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine) were addressed to the great bp. of Hippo, one by Prosper, and one by another Hilary, a layman. In the former, Prosper, after recounting various shades of dissent manifested in S. Gaul from the Augustinian teaching on predestination, expressly names Hilary, bp. of Arles, among the recalcitrants. Prosper refers in terms of high encomium to Hilary, and intimates that in all other respects the bp. of Arles was an admirer and supporter of Augustine's teaching. He believed, indeed, that Hilary had some intention of writing to Augustine for explanation on the points at issue. The epistle of Hilary the layman, though its statement is more brief and general, entirely confirms that of Prosper.

If on this evidence, and also from the respect shewn by him to Faustus of Riez, we are compelled to class Hilary of Arles with the semi-Pelagians, it must be recognized that he is a supporter of their views in their very mildest form. That Hilary had some grounds for fearing that Augustine's teaching might imperil the acknowledgment of man's free agency is admitted by many of our historians, e.g. Canons Bright (Hist. of Church, p.307) and Robertson (Hist. of Chr. Church, bk. iii. cc. ii. and vii.). St. Germain of Auxerre, who went twice over to Britain to contend against Pelagianism, was a companion of the bp. of Arles on at least one of his tours through Gaul. Out of this tour, undertaken by Hilary as metropolitan, there arose the important contest between the bps. of Arles and Rome which ended in procuring for the Roman see a great increase of authority, both in respect of territory and of power. The struggle is in many respects a remarkable one. Each side was well championed. Leo and Hilary were men of saintly piety, earnest and energetic in the discharge of their duties. Each conscientiously believed himself in the right; both were apt to be hasty and high-handed in carrying out their views of ecclesiastical government. Hilary found at Besançon (Vesontio), or according to some at Vesoul, a bp. named Chelidonius, the validity of whose position was assailed on the two grounds that he had married a widow while yet a layman, and that he had previously, as a lay magistrate, pronounced sentences of capital punishment. Hilary held a council at Vienne in 444, and we learn from his biographer and from the testimony of Leo that by its sentence Chelidonius was deposed from the episcopate and appealed to Rome in person. Although it was now midwinter, Hilary went on foot across the Alps. Presenting himself to Leo, he respectfully requested him to act in conformity with the canons and usages of the universal church. Persons juridically deposed were known to be serving the altar in Rome. If Leo found this to be the case, let him, as quietly and secretly as he pleased, put a stop to such violation of the canons. If Leo would not do this, Hilary would simply return home, as he had not come to Rome to bring any accusation. It seems probable, however, that he would have listened if Leo had been content with suggesting a rehearing of the cause in Gaul. Leo declined to take this view. Although Gaul was not a portion of the Roman patriarchate, the Roman pontiff resolved to assert over that region a claim similar to that which he had just failed to establish in Africa. [[297]LEO.] He summoned a council or conference in which Hilary, for the sake of peace, consented to take part. Several bishops were present, including Chelidonius. Hilary, with much plainness of speech, defended his conduct. Leo had him put under guard; but Hilary contrived to escape and (apparently in Feb.445) returned to Arles. Leo found the charge of marriage with a widow not proven against Chelidonius; and formally (as he had already done informally) pronounced him restored to his rank of bishop and to his see. Not content with the reversal of Hilary's sentence, Leo proceeded to deprive the bp. of Arles of his rights as a metropolitan, and to confer them on the bp. of Vienne. He further charged Hilary with having traversed Gaul attended by a band of armed men, and with hastily, without waiting for election by the clergy and laity, consecrating a new bishop in place of Projectus, a bishop (according to Hilary within his province) who was at that time ill. Leo availed himself of his great influence with Valentinian III., to obtain an imperial rescript against Hilary, as one who was injuring the peace of the church and rebelling against the majesty of the empire. This celebrated document, which virtually promised the support of the secular arm to the claim of the Roman pontiff to be a universal bishop, was issued in 445, and was addressed to the Roman general in Gaul, Aetius.

In this controversy Protestant historians, as a rule, take the side of Hilary. But Roman Catholics are much divided. Writers of the ultramontane school, as Rohrbacher or the Italian Gorini (cited in the recent edition of Dom Ceillier), are severe upon Hilary and profess to regard the emperor's rescript as only stating explicitly a principle always recognized. But the Gallicans, as Quesnel and Tillemont, strongly defend Hilary.

It must be said for him that his conviction, that the see off Arles gave him metropolitical power over the whole of Gaul, was based upon no small amount of cogent testimony. The case in favour of this has been ably summed up by Natalis Alexander (H. E. § v. c. v. art.8), and by the Rev. W. Kay in a note to the Oxf. trans. of Fleury (Lond.1844). But if it hold good for the case of Chelidonius, it is not equally clear for that of Projectus. That Hilary should escape from Rome, when he found the secular authority employed to detain him, was only natural and justifiable. That he should take soldiers with him in making his visitations may be reasonably ascribed (as Fleury suggests) to the disturbed state of the country. As regards Projectus, he may have strayed beyond the ill-defined limits of his province and most certainly violated canonical rule. But there is no reason to doubt that Hilary, in so acting, really believed that Projectus would not recover, and wished to provide against an emergency. As for Hilary's exceeding freedom of language in. the presence of Leo, which greatly shocked Leo and probably others among the audience, it must be remembered that the bp. of Arles was always wont to speak very plainly. Moreover, as a friend of Hilary, the prefect Auxiliaris subsequently observed, |Roman ears were very delicate.|

Those who are willing to accept pleas on behalf of Hilary do not thereby commit themselves to unreserved censure on pope Leo. The encouragement to interference in the affairs of S. Gaul was undeniably very great. Strong as was the case for the jurisdiction of Arles over most of the Gallican sees, the authority over Narbonensian Gaul had long been claimed for the bp. of Vienne. A contest between Patroclus of Arles and Proculus of Marseilles had already been carried to a former bp. of Rome, Zosimus, in 422 (some 22 years before the case of Hilary), though the result had not been encouraging to the partisans of Rome, since Zosimus misjudged it and his successor Boniface referred it back to the prelates of Gaul. But Leo, though at times dwelling more upon St. Peter's confession of faith than on his personal position, in all his letters bearing on the contest with Hilary repeats continually the text (Matt. xvi.18) on which other bishops of Rome had dwelt so much, and appeals to it as if no other interpretation had ever been heard of, and as in itself his sole and sufficient justification.

Leo's recourse to the emperor's aid has been severely censured; and Tillemont declared concerning the famous law of June 6, 445, that |in the eyes of those who have any love for the church's liberty or any knowledge of her discipline, it will bring as little honour to him whom it praises as of injury to him whom it condemns| (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xv. art. xx. p.83). Baronius (as Tillemont naturally adds) is fully justified in appealing to this act of Valentinian as a proof of the powerful aid lent by the emperors towards establishing the greatness and authority of the pope.

Of the remaining four years of Hilary's life, after his return to Gaul, we know little more than that they were incessantly occupied with the discharge of his duties. Practically the acts of Leo do not appear to have affected his position (see Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. ii. c. vii. pt. i. and Fleury), and Hilary never acknowledged their validity; though an appeal to Leo was made after Hilary's death for the restoration of its ancient metropolitical rights to Arles. The attempts of Hilary through friends to conciliate Leo availed little. But when, after the death of Hilary (May 5, 449), the prelates of the provinces announced to Leo that Ravennius had been elected and duly consecrated, Leo wrote an acknowledgment which sounds like a virtual retractation of his imputations on the motives and character of Hilary and most justly entitled him a man |of holy memory.|

Writings. -- Waterland (Critical History of the Athanasian Creed) argues that Hilary of Arles was the author of the (so-called) Creed of St. Athanasius, but this remains only an ingenious conjecture. Among other doubtful works assigned to Hilary must be classed certain poems on sacred subjects: (1) Poema de septem fratribus Maccabaeis ab Antiocho Epiphane interfectis. (2) A poem, more frequently attributed to Prosper Aquitanus and generally included in his works, entitled Carmen de Dei Providentiâ. (3) Carmen in Genesim. This poem (which, like the two preceding, is in hexameters) has been more often ascribed to the earlier Hilary, bp. of Poictiers. The Benedictine editors reject it with some indignation from the genuine works of Hilary of Poictiers; remarking, however, that this does not involve its attribution to Hilary of Arles. But despite faults -- theological, grammatical, and metrical -- the poem is curious as a real attempt at that blending of the Christian and classic elements of literature displayed in after-ages so brilliantly, though after all with questionable success, by such able scholars as the Jesuit Casimir and the Presbyterian Buchanan.

We have the authority of Hilary's biographer for asserting that he did compose some poetry (versus), wrote many letters, an explanation of the Creed (Symboli Expositio -- this is a main element in Waterland's argument) and sermons for all the church's festivals (Homiliae in totius Anni Festivitates). These were apparently extant when Honoratus wrote. Two only survive: (1) Epistola ad Eucherim Episcopum Lugdunensem. (2) Vita Sancti Honorati Arelatensis Episcopi. This may be read in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, for Jan.16.

[J.G.C.]

Hilarius, bp. of Rome
Hilarius (18) (Hilarus), bp. of Rome from Nov.19 (or 17, Bolland.), 461, to Sept.10, 467, succeeding Leo I., after a vacancy of nine days. He was a native of Sardinia and, when elected pope, archdeacon of Rome. He had been sent, when a deacon, as one of the legates of pope Leo to the council at Ephesus called Latrocinium (449), and is especially mentioned in the Acts of the council as having protested against the deposition of Flavian. After the council, Flavian having died from the violent treatment he had undergone, Hilarius, fearing with reason the like usage, escaped from Ephesus and travelled by by-roads to Italy. A letter from Hilarius, addressed after his return to the empress Pulcheria, gives an account of these transactions (Baron. ad ann.449, and Act. Concil. Chalced.). His short pontificate is chiefly memorable for his assertion of the authority of the see of Rome in Gaul and Spain. His predecessor Leo, during his struggle with St. Hilary of Arles for supremacy in Gaul, had obtained from Valentinian III. a famous rescript (445) confirming such supremacy to the fullest extent both in Gaul and elsewhere [[298]LEO]; and to such extent it was accordingly claimed by Hilarius. Soon after his accession he wrote (Jan.25, 462) to Leontius, bp. of Arles and exarch of the provinces of Narbonensian Gaul, announcing the event and referring to the deference due to the Roman see. In the same year he wrote a second letter to Leontius, who had deferentially congratulated the pope on his accession, and had begged him to continue the favour shewn to the see of Arles against opponents of its jurisdiction. The pope, in his reply, commends his correspondent's deference to St. Peter and desires that the discipline of the Roman church should prevail in all churches. Rusticus, metropolitan of Narbonne, had nominated his archdeacon Hermes as his successor, but had failed to obtain Leo's approval. On the death of Rusticus, Hermes had been accepted by the clergy and people of Narbonne as their metropolitan bishop. On this, Frederic, king of the West Goths, an Arian, wrote to acquaint the pope with the |wicked usurpation| and |execrable presumption| of Hermes. Accordingly Hilarius wrote a third letter to Leontius, in which he adopts the language of Frederic, and requires Leontius to send to Rome a statement of the affair, signed by himself and other bishops (Hil. Ep. vii. Labbe). The matter was now brought before a synod at Rome (462), and Hermes was declared degraded from the rank of metropolitan, but allowed to retain his see. Hilarius notified this decision in a letter dated Dec.3, 462, to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne, Lyons, Narbonensis prima and secunda, and the Pennine Alps, which letter also contained regulations for the discipline of the church in Gaul (Hil. Ep. viii. Labbe). In 463 Hilarius again interposed in the affairs of the church in Gaul; and on this occasion not only Leontius of Arles but also Mamertus, metropolitan of Vienne, fell under his displeasure. The city Diae Vocontiorum (Die in Dauphine) had been assigned by pope Leo to the jurisdiction of Arles; but Mamertus had, notwithstanding, ordained a bp. of that see. Hilarius, again deriving his information from an Arian prince, Gundriac the Burgundian king, wrote a severe letter to Leontius, censuring him for not having apprized the holy see, and charging him to investigate the matter in a synod and then send to Rome a synodal letter giving a true account of it. Mamertus seems to have continued to assert his claim to jurisdiction in spite of the pope; for in Feb.464 we find two more letters from Hilarius, a general one to the Gallican bishops, and another to various bishops addressed by name, in the former of which he accuses Mamertus of presumption and prevarication, threatens to deprive him of his metropolitan rank and disallows the bishops whom he had ordained till confirmed by Leontius. The second letter is noteworthy in that the pope rests his claim to supremacy over Gaul on imperial as well as ecclesiastical law; alluding probably to the rescript of Valentinian III. |He [i.e. Mamertus] could not abrogate any portion of the right appointed to our brother Leontius by my predecessor of holy memory; since it has been decreed by the law of Christian princes that whatsoever the prelate of the apostolic see may, on his own judgment, have pronounced to churches and their rulers . . . is to be tenaciously observed; nor can those things ever be upset which shall be supported by both ecclesiastical and royal injunction| (Hil. Epp. ix. x. xi. Labbe). Baronius finds it needful to account for St. Leo and St. Hilarius having so bitterly inveighed against St. Hilary and St. Mamertus by saying that popes may be deceived on matters of fact, and, under the prepossession of false accusations, persecute the innocent (Baron. ad ann.464).

In 465 Hilary exercised over the Spanish church the authority already brought to bear on that of Gaul, but this time on appeal. Two questions came before him. First, Silvanus, bp. of Calchorra, had been guilty of offences against the canons; and his metropolitan, Ascanius of Tarragona, had in 464 sent a synodal letter on the subject to the pope, requesting directions (Inter Hilar. Epp., Ep. ii. Labbe). Secondly, Nundinarius, bp. of Barcelona, had nominated his successor, and after his death the nomination was confirmed by the metropolitan Ascanius and his suffragans. But they wrote to the pope desiring his concurrence and acknowledging the primacy of St. Peter's see. Both these letters were considered in a synod at Rome. On the second case it was decided that Irenaeus, the nominated bishop, should quit the see of Barcelona and return to his former one, while the Spanish bishops were ordered to condone the uncanonical acts of Silvanus (Hil. Epp. i. ii. iii. and Concil. Rom. xlviii. Labbe).

In 467 the new emperor Anthemius was induced by one Philotheus a Macedonian heretic whom he had brought with him, to issue a general edict of toleration for heretics. This was, however, revoked before coming into effect, and pope Gelasius (Ep. ad Episc. Dardan.) says that this was due to Hilarius having in the church of St. Peter remonstrated with the emperor and induced him to promise on oath that he would allow no schismatical assemblies in Rome. In the same year Hilarius died. He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint and confessor. In remembrance of his deliverance at Ephesus from the trials that procured him the title of confessor, he built, after he became pope, in the baptistery of Constantine near the Lateran, two chapels dedicated to St. John Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, to the latter of whom he attributed his deliverance. The chapel to the Evangelist bore the inscription, |Liberatori suo Johanni Evangelistae, Hilarus famulus Christi| (Bolland. citing Caesar Rasponus).

The extant writings of Hilarius are his letters referred to above. Anastasius Bibliothecarius mentions his decreta sent to various parts, confirming the synods of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, condemning Eutyches, Nestorius, and all heretics, and confirming the domination and primacy of the holy Catholic and apostolic see (Concil. Rom. u.s.; Thiel. Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i.).

[J.B -- Y.]

Hippolytus Romanus
Hippolytus (2) Romanus. Though so celebrated in his lifetime, Hippolytus has been but obscurely known to the church of subsequent times. He was at the beginning of the 3rd cent. unquestionably the most learned member of the Roman church, and a man of very considerable literary activity; his works were very numerous, and their circulation spread from Italy to the East, some having been translated into Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and perhaps other languages. His name assumes various disguises, as Poltus in the popular memory of Italy, in Egypt as Abulides. There is evidence also that he took a very active part in the affairs of his own church; but there are no contemporary witnesses to inform us concerning his personal history. A century after his death Eusebius evidently knew nothing of him beyond what he could infer from such works of his as had reached him. These works were soon superseded by those of other more able and learned writers. Scarcely one has come down to us without mutilation, and the authenticity of almost every work assigned to him has been disputed. Yet his celebrity survived, and various legends, not always carefully distinguished from the authentic history of the saint, arose. It has been disputed whether Hippolytus was a presbyter or a bishop; and if a bishop, of what see; whether he laboured in Italy or Arabia; whether he was orthodox or a schismatic; whether he was a martyr, and if so, by what death he died. At length the recovery of the work on heresies, now by general consent attributed to him, cleared away some obscurities in his personal history, though many questions can still receive only doubtful answers.

The earliest notice of Hippolytus is by Eusebius in two passages (H. E. vi.20, 22). In the first, speaking of ecclesiastical writers of whom letters were then preserved in the library at Jerusalem, Eusebius mentions |likewise Hippolytus, who was bishop of another church somewhere.| In the second he gives a list of the works of Hippolytus which he had met with (not including any letters), this being probably the list of those in the library at Caesarea, but adds that many other works by him might be found elsewhere.

If the earliest witnesses give no certain information as to where Hippolytus laboured, they enable us to determine when he lived. Eusebius says that he wrote a work on the Paschal feast, in which he gives a sixteen-years' Easter table, and accompanies it with a chronology, the boundary of his calculations being the first year of the emperor Alexander, i.e. A.D.222. In 1551, in some excavations made on the Via Tirburtina, near Rome, a marble statue was found, representing a venerable person sitting in a chair, clad in the Greek pallium. The back and sides of the chair contain Greek inscriptions. The back has a list of works presumably written by the person represented. One side has a sixteen-years' cycle, exactly corresponding to the description of Eusebius and beginning with the first year of Alexander. Other evidence makes it certain that this cycle is that of Hippolytus. The works sufficiently agree with those ascribed to Hippolytus by Eusebius and Jerome; and no doubt is entertained that Hippolytus is the person commemorated. The list of Paschal full moons in the cycle gives accurately the astronomical full moons for the years 217-223 inclusive. For the next eight years the true full moons are a day or two later than those given, and after that deviate still further; so that after two or three revolutions of the cycle the table would be useless. This table must, then, have been framed about the time specified, a.d.222, and the chair must be a nearly contemporary monument, for it is not conceivable that the table would be put on record, to do its author honour, after it had been tried long enough to make its worthlessness apparent. Further, the inscription is in Greek, and the early Roman church contained a large section, if not a majority, of foreigners, whose habitual language was Greek. This inscription must have been placed before that section had disappeared and Latin had become the exclusive language of the church. A further proof of antiquity is furnished by the list of writings, which is independent of those of Eusebius and Jerome, and which no one in the West could have drawn up long after the death of Hippolytus. The date thus fixed agrees with what we otherwise know, that Hippolytus was a contemporary of Origen, Jerome telling us that it appeared from a homily of Hippolytus then extant that it had been delivered in Origen's hearing. We know from Eusebius (H. E. vi.14) that Origen visited Rome in the reign of Caracalla and episcopate of Zephyrinus, i.e. some time in the years 211-217. In one of these years he might thus have heard Hippolytus preach. We must place the commencement of the activity of Hippolytus as early as the 2nd cent. Photius tells us that the treatise of Hippolytus Against all the Heresies professed to be a synopsis of lectures delivered by Irenaeus. The simplest supposition seems to be that Hippolytus heard Irenaeus lecture in Rome. Eusebius tells of one visit of Irenaeus to Rome c.178. A note in a Moscow MS. of the martyrdom of Polycarp (Zahn's Ignatius, p.167) represents him as teaching at Rome several years before. It is not unlikely that Irenaeus came again to Rome and there delivered lectures against heresies. The time could not have been long after the beginning of the last decade of the 2nd cent. It has been shewn that the author of the cycle engraved on the chair must also have been the author of a chronicle, a Latin translation of which is extant, the last event in which is the death of the emperor Alexander (235). In that year an entry in the Liberian Catalogue of bishops of Rome records that Pontianus the bishop, and Hippolytus the presbyter, were transported as exiles to the pestilent island of Sardinia. It is difficult to believe that the Hippolytus here described as presbyter is not our Hippolytus, and probably both he and Pontianus gained the title of martyrs by dying in the mines. >From the |depositio martyrum| of the Liberian Catalogue it appears that the bodies of Pontianus and Hippolytus were both deposited on the same day (Aug.13), the former in the cemetery of Callistus, the latter in that on the Via Tiburtina, and it is natural to think that both bodies were brought from Sardinia to Rome. The translation of Pontianus, we are told, was effected by pope Fabianus, probably in 236 or 237. A very different account of the martyrdom of Hippolytus is given by Prudentius (Peristeph.11), who wrote at the beginning of the 5th cent. His story is that Hippolytus had been a presbyter, who was torn in pieces at Ostia by wild horses, like the Hippolytus of mythology. Prudentius describes the subterranean tomb of the saint and states that he saw on the spot a picture representing this execution, and that this martyrdom was commemorated on Aug.13. He gives an account of the crowds who flocked to the commemoration and a description of a stately church, with a double row of pillars, which Döllinger considers was the church of St. Laurence ( 258), a saint whose cultus attained much greater celebrity, and who was also buried on the Via Tiburtina, his church being adjacent to the tomb of Hippolytus.

The picture which Prudentius saw may well have been originally intended to depict the sufferings of the mythological Hippolytus, and, being inscribed with that name, have been ignorantly copied or transferred by Christians to adorn the resting-place of the martyr of that name. The tale told by Prudentius is plainly the offspring of the picture, and the authentic evidence of the deposition, on Aug.13, on the Via Tiburtina of the remains of a Hippolytus who is coupled with Pontianus indicates the real owner of the tomb, of whom, in the century and a half which passed before Prudentius visited it, all but his name and the day of his feast had been forgotten.

What light has been cast upon his history by the recovery of the treatise against heresies? The portion previously extant had been known under the name of Origen's Philosophumena. We make no scruple in treating this as the work of Hippolytus, for this is the nearly unanimous opinion of critics, Lipsius alone hesitating and cautiously citing the author as Pseudo-Origenes. From this work it appears that he took an active part in the affairs of the Roman church in the episcopates of Zephyrinus and Callistus. Döllinger has shewn that, without imputing wilful misstatement to Hippolytus, it is possible to put on all that he relates about CALLISTUS a very much more favourable interpretation than he has done; and with regard to the charge that Callistus in trying to steer a middle course between Sabellianism and orthodoxy had invented a new heresy, the retort may be made that it was Hippolytus himself who in his dread of Sabellianism had laid himself open to the charge of Ditheism. But the point to which Döllinger called attention, with which we are most concerned here, is that Hippolytus in this work never recognizes Callistus as bp. of Rome. He says that Callistus had aspired to the episcopal throne and that on the death of Zephyrinus |he supposed himself to have obtained what he had been hunting for.| But Hippolytus treats him only as the founder of a school (didaskaleion) in opposition to the Catholic church, using the same word with regard to Noetus (cont. Haer. Noeti, Lagarde, p.44), of whom he says that when expelled from the church he had the presumption to set up |a school.| Hippolytus says that Callistus and his party claimed to be the Catholic church and gloried in their numbers, though this multitude of adherents had been gained by unworthy means, namely, by improper laxity in receiving offenders. Callistus had received into his communion persons whom Hippolytus had excommunicated. He adds that this school of Callistus still continued when he wrote, which was plainly after the death of Callistus, and he refuses to give its members any name but Callistians. Evidently the breach between Hippolytus and Callistus had proceeded to open schism. But if Hippolytus did not regard Callistus as bp. of Rome, whom did he so regard? To this question it is difficult to give any answer but Döllinger's: Hippolytus claimed to be bp. of Rome himself. In the introduction to his work, Hippolytus claims to hold the episcopal office; he declares that the pains which he took in the confutation of heresy were his duty as successor of the apostles, partaker of the grace of the Holy Spirit that had been given to them and which they transmitted to those of right faith, and as clad with the dignity of the high priesthood and office of teaching and guardian of the church. Afterwards we find him exercising the power of excommunication upon persons, who thereupon joined the school of Callistus. Thus we seem to have a key to the difficulty that Hippolytus is described in the Liberian Catalogue only as presbyter, and yet was known in the East universally as bishop; and very widely as bp. of Rome. His claim to be bishop was not admitted by the church of Rome, but was made in works of his, written in Greek and circulating extensively in the East, either by himself in the works or more probably in titles prefixed to them by his ardent followers. We have also a key to the origin of the tradition that Hippolytus had been a Novatianist. He had been in separation from the church, and the exact cause of difference had been forgotten. Against another hypothesis, that Hippolytus was at the same time bp. of Portus and a leading presbyter of Rome, Döllinger urges, besides the weakness of the proof that Hippolytus was bp. of Portus, that there is no evidence that Portus had then a bishop, and that, according to the then constitution of the church, the offices of presbyter and bishop could not be thus combined. Döllinger contends that the schism could not have occurred immediately on the election of Callistus; but there is exactly the same reason for saying that Hippolytus refused to recognize Zephyrinus as bishop, as that he rejected Callistus; for he speaks of the former also as |imagining| that he governed the church. In consistency, then, Döllinger ought to have made the schism begin in the time of Zephyrinus, and so de Rossi does, adding a conjecture of his own, that the leader of the schism had been Victor's archdeacon, and had in that capacity obtained his knowledge of the early life of Callistus, and that he was actuated by disappointment at not having been made bishop on Victor's death. On the other hand, to make a schism of which no one in the East seems to have ever heard begin so early ascribes to it such long duration as to be quite incredible. For it continued after the death of Callistus, some time after which the account in the treatise on heresies was plainly written, and Döllinger thinks it even possible that it may have continued up to the time of the deportation of Pontianus and Hippolytus to Sardinia. He regards with some favour the hypothesis that this banishment might have been designed to deliver the city from dissensions and disputes for the possession of churches between the adherents of the rival leaders. It seems to us most likely that Pontianus and Hippolytus were banished early in the reign of Maximin as the two leading members of the Christian community. We find it hard to refuse the explanation of von Döllinger, which makes Hippolytus the first anti-pope; but the difficulties arising from the fact that the existence of so serious a schism has been absolutely unknown to the church from the 4th cent. to the 19th are so great, that if we knew of any other way of satisfactorily explaining the language of Hippolytus we should adopt it in preference. We are not told who consecrated Hippolytus as bishop, but a schism in inaugurating which bishops thus took the lead must have been a serious one: it lasted at least 5 or 6 years, and, if we make it begin in the time of Zephyrinus as we seem bound to do, perhaps 20 years, and it had as its head the most learned man of the Roman church and one whose name was most likely to be known to foreign churches. Yet the existence of this schism was absolutely unknown abroad. All Greek lists of the popes, as well as the Latin, include Callistus, and make no mention of Hippolytus; and the confessed ignorance of Eusebius about the see of Hippolytus is proof enough that he was not in possession of the key to the difficulty. In the Novatianist disputes which commenced about 15 years after the death of Hippolytus, when many would still be alive who could have remembered the controversy between him and Callistus, we find no allusion on either side to any such comparatively recent schism of which a man holding rigorist views resembling those of Novatian was the head. Bearing in mind the excitement caused in the case of Novatian, we ask, Was the question who was bp. of Rome regarded as a matter of such purely local concern that controversy could go on at Rome for years and the outside world know nothing of it, and that although the unsuccessful claimant was a person on other grounds very widely known? Is it conceivable, if Hippolytus really set up a rival chair to Callistus, that he, whose books and letters widely circulated in the East, made no attempt to enlist on his side the bishops of the great Eastern sees? Or is it likely, if Hippolytus had started a long-continued and dangerous schism at Rome, that the predominant party should have completely condoned his offence, that he should have been honoured for centuries as a saint and a martyr, and that his name should have been handed down with no hint of that schism until words of his own came to light to suggest it? These improbabilities in the theory hitherto most generally received, amount almost to
impossibilities, though we confess it difficult to find a satisfactory substitute. We can only suggest that if there were at the time, as there are grounds for supposing, a Greek congregation at Rome, the head of it is very likely to have been Hippolytus, and the head of such a congregation might naturally be entrusted with the episcopal power of admitting or excluding members, since doubtful cases could scarcely be investigated by a Latin-speaking pope. The supposition that he may have received episcopal consecration, besides explaining the enigmatical dignity ethnon episkopos ascribed by Photius to Caius, would give a less violently improbable account of the claim of Hippolytus to episcopal dignity than the theory that he had been consecrated as anti-pope. As he was probably the last holder of his anomalous office, it is not surprising if no remembrance was retained of its exact constitution; but it is in the nature of things probable that the period when the church of Rome was Greek and when it was Latin should be separated by a bilingual period; and it is not unnatural that the arrangements made during that interval should be forgotten when the need for them had passed. The severity of the persecutions at Rome under Decius and Valerian seems to have obliterated much of the recollections of the history of the early part of the century. Whether Hippolytus was bishop or presbyter, he wrote his attacks on Callistus in Greek and addressed them to Greek-speaking people, and there is no evidence that he made any assault on the unity of the Latin-speaking church. This may account for the faintness of the impression which his schismatic language produced and for the facility with which it was pardoned. That the arrogance and intemperance of language which he displayed did not deprive him of permanent honour in the Roman church is to be accounted for by the leniency with which men treat the faults of one who has real claims to respect. Hippolytus was a man of whose learning the whole Roman church must have been proud; he was of undoubted piety, and of courage which he proved in his good confession afterwards. The way of return would not be made difficult for such a man when he really wished all dissension to end.

The preceding discussions have told all that is known of the life of Hippolytus. We now proceed to enumerate his works; acknowledging the great help of the list of Caspari, Taufsymbol und Glaubensregel, iii.377.

(1) Most completely associated with his name is the 16 years' cycle (mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, u.s.), and the little treatise in which he explained it. This is among the list of works on the statue, Apodeixis chronon tou pascha kai ta en to pinaki. That the cycle engraved on the statue is undoubtedly that of Hippolytus is not only proved by facts already pointed out and by its interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel in the manner peculiar to Hippolytus, but is placed beyond doubt by its literal agreement with a Syriac version of the cycle of Hippolytus preserved in a chronological work by Elias of Nisibis (Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, p.89). The cycle of 8 years used by Greek astronomers for harmonizing lunar and solar years is much older than Hippolytus. What was novel in the scheme of Hippolytus was his putting two eight-years' cycles together in order to exhibit readily the days of the week on which the full moons fell. The cycle of Hippolytus is not astronomically correct, and, as the Syriac writer correctly states, the error accumulates at the rate of three days for every sixteen-years' cycle. Of this Hippolytus has no suspicion, and he supposed that he could by means of his cycle determine all Paschal full moons future or past.

(2) Eusebius, in the passage where he has spoken of the work on the Paschal feast just considered (to peri tou pascha sungramma), proceeds with a list of the other works of Hippolytus he had met with, among which is one peri tou pascha. The use of the definite article in the first case might suggest that Eusebius only knew one such work, and mentions it the second time in its order in his collection of works of Hippolytus. But it may be considered certain that Hippolytus treated doubly of the Paschal celebration: in (1) giving rules for finding Easter; in another writing, which probably was an Easter-day sermon, treating of its doctrinal import.

(3) Among the works enumerated on the statue is a chronicle. The list runs chronikon pros Hellenas, and it has been questioned whether this describes two separate works, or a chronicle written with a controversial object; but the remains of the chronicle itself shew it to have been written for the instruction of Christians and not as a polemic against heathenism. The chronicle records the death of the emperor Alexander, and therefore the deportation of Hippolytus and Pontianus to Sardinia could not have taken place under Alexander as the later Papal Catalogue has it, but under Maximin. It follows, also, that this chronicle is likely to be the latest work of Hippolytus, and therefore that a passage common to it and to the later treatise on heresy was taken from an earlier work, a supposition which presents no difficulty.

(4) We pass now from the chronological to the anti-heretical writings; first, the treatise against all heresies, which may have been the earliest work of Hippolytus. It is mentioned in the lists of both Eusebius and Jerome, and a passage is quoted from it in the Paschal Chronicle, though it is not in the list on the chair as we have it, which shews that we cannot build any conclusion on the absence of a name therefrom. The fullest account of this treatise is given by Photius (Cod.121). He describes it as a small book, biblidarion, against 32 heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus and the Noetians; that it purported to be an abstract of discourses of Irenaeus; was written in a clear, dignified style, though not observant of Attic propriety. It denied St. Paul's authorship, of Hebrews. It was probably published in the early years of the episcopate (199-217) of Zephyrinus, to lead up to an assault on Noetianism, then the most formidable heresy at Rome.

(5) A work, or rather a fragment, bearing in the MS. the title of Homily of Hippolytus against the Heresy of one Noetus, appears on examination to be not a homily, but the conclusion of a treatise against more heresies than one. It begins: |Certain others are privily introducing another doctrine, having become disciples of one Noetus.| It proceeds to refute the Noetian objection that the assertion of the distinct personality of our Lord contradicts those texts of Scripture which declare the absolute unity of God. At the end of this discussion he says, |Now that Noetus also has been refuted, let us come to the setting forth of the truth, that we may establish the truth, against which all so great heresies have arisen, without being able to say anything.| The orthodoxy of the tract seems unsuspected by Tillemont, Ceillier, Lumper, and others. It was formally defended by bp. Bull, and was published by Routh (Ecc. Script. Opusc.) as a lucid exposition of orthodox doctrine. When, however, it came to light that the teaching of Hippolytus had been censured by pope Callistus, Döllinger had no difficulty in pointing out features in it open to censure. Though Hippolytus acknowledges the Logos to have been from eternity dwelling in God as His intelligence, he yet appears to teach that there was a definite epoch determined by the will of God, prior no doubt to all creation, when that Logos, which had previously dwelt impersonally in God, assumed a separate hypostatic existence, in order that by Him the world should be framed and the Deity manifested to it. Thus, beside God there appeared another; yet not two Gods, but only as light from light, a ray from the sun. Hippolytus also teaches that it was only at the Incarnation that He Who before was the Logos properly became Son, though previously He might be called Son in reference to what He was to be. Döllinger imagines that this emanation doctrine of Hippolytus may, in the controversies of the time, have been stigmatized as Valentinian, and that thus we may account for a late authority connecting this heresy with his name.

(6) Refutation of all Heresies. -- In 1842 Minoides Mynas brought to Paris from Mount Athos, besides other literary treasures, a 14th-cent. MS. containing what purported to be a refutation of all heresies, divided into 10 books. Owing to mutilation, the MS. begins in the middle of bk. iv.; but from the numbering of the leaves it is inferred that the MS. had never contained any of the first three books. Miller, who published it in 1851 for the Univ. of Oxford, perceived that it belonged to the work published under the name of Origen's Philosophumena by Gronovius, and afterwards in the Benedictine ed. of Origen, though it had been perceived that the ascription to Origen must be erroneous, as the author claims the dignity of high priesthood, and refers to a former work on heresies, while no such work is said to have been composed by Origen. Miller in his edition reprinted the Philosophumena as bk. i. of the Elenchus, but ascribed the whole to Origen, an ascription which was generally rejected. Jacobi, in a German periodical, put forward the claims of Hippolytus, a theory which was embraced by Bunsen (Hippolytus and his Age, 1852; 2nd ed., Christianity and Mankind, 1854) and Wordsworth (St. Hippol. and the Ch. of Rome, 1853, 2nd ed.1880), and completely established by Döllinger (Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853). From the book itself we infer that the author lived at Rome during the episcopates of Zephyrinus and Callistus and for some time afterwards; that he held high ecclesiastical office, and enjoyed much consideration, being not afraid to oppose his opinion on a theological question to that of the bishop, and able to persuade himself that fear of him restrained the bishop from a course on which he otherwise would have entered. Hippolytus satisfies these conditions better than any one else for whom the authorship has been claimed. Further, the hypothesis that Hippolytus was the author gives the explanation of the prevalent Eastern belief that he was bp. of Rome, of the tradition preserved by Prudentius that he had been once in schism from the church, and of the singular honour of a statue done him; for as the head of a party his adherents would glorify his learning and prolific industry. That the work on heresies connects itself with six distinct works of Hippolytus makes the ascription certain. A trans. of the Refutation and of other fragments is in the vol. Apost. Fathers in Ante-Nic. Lib. (T. & T Clark).

(a) The Treatise against the Thirty-two Heresies. -- The author begins by saying that he had a long time before (palai) published another work against heresy, with less minute exposure of the secret doctrines of the heretics than that which he now proposes to make. Of those for whom the authorship has been claimed, Hippolytus is the only one whom we know to have published a previous work on heresies. The time between the two works would be 20 years at least.

(b) The Treatise on the Universe. -- At the end of the Refutation (x.32, p.334, Plummer's trans.) the author refers to a previous work of his, peri tes tou pantos ousias, and among the works ascribed to Hippolytus on the statue we read, pros Hellenas kai pros Platona he kai peri tou pantos. Photius remarks that the author of the work on the universe also wrote the Labyrinth, according to a statement at the end of that work. Now, bk. x. begins with the words, |The labyrinth of heresies.| We may, then, reasonably conclude that what Photius knew as the Labyrinth was our bk. x. which was known by its first word.

(c) The Chronicle and the Treatise on the Psalms. -- The enumeration of the 72 nations among whom the earth was divided (x.30), and which the author states that he had previously given in other books, precisely agrees with that in the Chronicle of Hippolytus; and though this chronicle was probably later than the Refutation, Hippolytus wrote commentaries on Genesis, where this enumeration would naturally be given in treating of c. x., and he appears to have been, like many prolific writers, apt to repeat himself. This same enumeration is given in his commentary on the Psalms (No.29 infra).

(d) The Tract against Noetus. -- On comparing this tract with the exposition of the troth given at the end of the Refutation, the identity of doctrine, and sometimes of form of expression, decisively proves common authorship. The same doctrine is found, that the Logos, Which had from eternity dwelt in the Deity as His unspoken thought, afterwards assumed a separate hypostatic existence; differing from created things not only in priority but also because they were out of nothing, He of the substance of the Godhead; and being the framer of the universe according to the divine ideas (in the Platonic sense of the word) which had dwelt in Him from the first. That the Son's personal divinity was not by the original necessity of His nature, but given by an act of the divine will, is stated more offensively than in the earlier tract. He says to his reader, |God has been pleased to make you a man, not a god. If He had willed to make you a god He could have done so; you have the example of the Logos.|

(e) The Treatise on Antichrist. -- In c. ii. of this treatise (Lagarde, p.2), when telling how the prophets treated not only of the past but of the present and the future, he uses language in some respects verbally coinciding with what is said in the Elenchus (x.33, p.337).

The evidence which has been produced amounts to a demonstration of the Hippolytine authorship. The title of the work would be philosophoumena e kata pason haireseon elenchos; the name Philosophumena properly applying to the first 4 books, the Elenchus to the last 6. Its chief value to us consists, in addition to the light cast on the disputes in the church of Rome at the beginning of the 3rd cent., in its extracts from otherwise unknown gnostic writings, inserted by the author to shame these sects by an exposure of their secret tenets. Its attack on the character of pope Callistus was fatal to its circulation. No doubt when a reconciliation was effected at Rome all parties desired to suppress the book. Bk. i. was preserved as containing a harmless and useful account of the doctrines of heathen philosophers; and bk. x., which presented no cause for offence (there being nothing to indicate that the heretic Callistus mentioned in it was intended for the bp. of Rome), also had some circulation and was seen by Theodoret and Photius. But these two writers are the only ones in whom we can trace any knowledge of bk. x., which was certainly not used by Epiphanius. The rest of the work is mentioned by no extant writer, and but for the chance preservation of a single copy in the East would have altogether perished.

(7) The Little Labyrinth. -- Eusebius (H. E. v.27) gives some long extracts from an anonymous work against the heresy of Artemon. Internal evidence shews that the writer was a member of the Roman church and speaks of things that occurred in the episcopate of Zephyrinus as having happened in his own time. On the other hand, Zephyrinus is described as Victor's successor, language not likely to be used if Zephyrinus were at the time bishop, or even the last preceding bishop. The writer's recollection too does not appear to go back to the episcopate of Victor. The date would therefore be soon after the episcopate of Callistus. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. ii.5) refers to the same work as known in his time under the name of the Little Labyrinth and attributed by some to Origen; though Theodoret considers this assumption disproved by the difference of style. Photius (Cod.48) ascribes to Caius a book called the Labyrinth, which we have identified with the summary of the Elenchus. He does not mention the Little Labyrinth, but adds that it was said that Caius had composed a special treatise against the heresy of Artemon. We have no reason to think that the Labyrinth of Photius and the Little Labyrinth of Theodoret were the same; on the contrary, the latter was probably identical with the treatise against Artemon, which Photius expressly distinguishes from his Labyrinth. Internal evidence, and the fact that we have some external evidence for the authorship of Caius and none for that of Hippolytus, cause us to give our verdict for Caius.

(8) The Work against Bero and Helix. -- A certain Anastasius of the 7th cent. is the earliest authority for designating Hippolytus as bp. of Portus. He so calls him in sending to Rome extracts made by him at Constantinople from what purported to be a treatise of Hippolytus, peri theologias kai sarkoseos, against the above-named heretics, his adversaries having hindered Anastasius from getting possession of the entire work. Döllinger (p.295) has given conclusive reasons for regarding this as no work of Hippolytus, but as a forgery not earlier than the 6th cent. The technical language of these fragments is also that of the controversies of the 5th cent., and quite unlike that of the age of Hippolytus. It was doubtless Anastasius who supplied another passage from the discourse peri theologias produced at the Lateran Council in 649.

(9) A Syriac list of the writings of Hippolytus given by Ebed Jesu, a writer of the very beginning of the: 14th cent. (Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii.1, p.15), contains a work whose Syriac title is translated by Ecchelensis de Regimine, by Assemani de Dispensatione. Adopting the latter rendering and taking |dispensatio| to be equivalent to oikonomia, we should conclude its subject to be our Lord's Incarnation. It may therefore be identical with (8). If the other rendering be adopted, the work would relate to church government, and might be identical with some part of (21).

(10) The Treatise against Marcion. -- Mentioned in the catalogues of Eusebius and Jerome, but nothing of it remains.

(11) On the statue is enumerated a work peri tagathou kai pothen to kakon. This may well have been an anti-Marcionite composition, and possibly that mentioned by Eusebius (10).

(12) Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John. -- We may probably class among anti-heretical writings the work described on the chair as huper tou kata Ioannen euangeliou kai apokalupseos, and in the list of Ebed Jesu as |a defence of the Apocalypse and Gospel of the apostle and evangelist John.| The work on the Apocalypse mentioned by Jerome we take to be different, and we notice it among the exegetical works. Hippolytus in his extant remains constantly employs the Apocalypse, and his regard for it is appealed to by Andrew of Caesarea (Max. Bibl. Patr. v.590). It has been supposed that CAIUS was the writer, replied to by Hippolytus, who ascribes the Apocalypse and the Gospel to Cerinthus; but the arguments for supposing that Caius rejected the Apocalypse are inconclusive, and it is highly improbable that he, an orthodox member of the Roman church, rejected the Gospel of St. John.

(13) One argument in support of the view just referred to is that Ebed Jesu (u.s.) enumerates among the works of Hippolytus Chapters (or heads) against Caius, which, it has been conjectured, were identical with (12). But Ebed Jesu reckons the two works as distinct. What other heresy of Caius Hippolytus could have confuted is unknown.

(14) It is hard to draw the line between controversial and dogmatic books. Thus, with regard to the treatise cited by Anastasius Sinaita (Lagarde, No.9, p.90), peri anastaseos kai aphtharsias, which may be the same as that described on the statue as peri Theou kai sarkos anastaseos and by Jerome as de Resurrectione, we cannot tell whether it was a simple explanation of Christian doctrine or directed against the errors of heretics or heathens.

(15) A controversial character more clearly belongs to another work on the same subject, a fragment of which is preserved in Syriac (Lagarde, Anal. Syr. p.87), and contains what Stephen Gobar (Photius, Cod.232) noted as a peculiarity of Hippolytus, found also in both his treatises against heresy, viz. that he makes Nicolas the deacon himself, and not any misunderstood saying of his, the origin of the errors of the Nicolaitanes. Here he is charged with maintaining that the resurrection has passed already and that Christians are to expect none other than that which took place when they believed and were baptized.

(16) One work at least Hippolytus specially directed to the heathen, and though this is not included in the list of Jerome he probably alludes to it (Ep. ad Magnum, i.423) where he classes Hippolytus with others who wrote |contra gentes.| On the chair we read chronikon pros Hellenas kai pros Platona e kai peri tou pantos. We might take pros Hellenas as a distinct work, or with what precedes or with what follows. That the last is the true construction appears both from the title given in one of the MSS., in which a fragment is preserved, ho logos pros Hellenas ho epigegrammenos kata Platona peri tes tou pantos aitias, and from the fact that the same fragment contains addresses to the Greeks. This, then, is evidently the treatise peri tes tou pantos ousias, mentioned at the end of the Elenchus, and of which Photius speaks in a passage already referred to (Cod.48). He says that the treatise was in two short books, that it shewed that Plato was inconsistent; that the Platonic philosopher Alcinous had spoken falsely and absurdly about the soul, matter, and the resurrection; and that the Jewish nation was much older than the Greek. The theory of the universe embodied in this work made all things consist of the four elements, earth, air, fire, or water. Things formed of more elements than one are subject to death by the dissolution of their component parts, but things formed of one element (e.g. angels, formed of fire alone) are indissoluble and immortal. Angels also have no female, for from water the generative principle is derived. Man is made of all four elements, his soul being formed of air and called psuche, because this element is colder than the other three. The principal extant fragment contains a description of Hades as a place underground where souls are detained until the judgment. The gate is guarded by an archangel. When the angels appointed to that service conduct thither righteous souls, they proceed to the right to a place of light called Abraham's bosom, where they enjoy continued present pleasures with the expectation of still greater happiness in the future. The wicked, on the other hand, are hurried down to the left into a place of darkness where is the lake of fire, into which no one has yet been cast, but which is prepared for the future judgment. There they not only suffer present temporary punishments, but are tormented by the sight and smoke of that: burning lake and the horrible expectation of the punishment to come. The sight of the righteous also punishes them, between whom and them a great gulf is fixed; and while the bodies of the righteous will rise renewed and glorified, theirs will be raised with all their diseases and decay. Bunsen conjectures that Hippolytus may have taken some points for which he has not Scripture authority from the Apoalypse of Peter.

(17) The Demonstration against the Jews. -- The Greek text of a fragment of a work bearing this title was first published by Fabricius (vol. ii.1) from a copy supplied by Montfaucon from a Vatican MS. There is no external evidence to confirm the ascription in the MS. of this work to Hippolytus. The mutilated list on the chair begins -ous; but it is bare conjecture which completes this into pros Ioudaious. There is nothing in the fragment which forbids us to suppose Hippolytus the writer. It shews that the Jews have no reason to glory in the sufferings they inflicted on Jesus of Nazareth, for it had been foretold that the Messiah should so suffer, and these sufferings had been the cause of the misery afterwards endured by the Jewish nation.

(18) We pass now to dogmatic writings. Jerome, in his list of the writings of Hippolytus, gives |Prosomilia de laude Domini salvatoris.| This is the homily delivered in the presence of Origen.

(19) The Work on Antichrist. -- Of all the writings of Hippolytus this is the only one extant in a perfect state, or nearly so. It appears in Jerome's list with the title de Antichrista; Photius calls it peri Christou kai antichristou; and the title it bears in the MS. from which the first printed edition was made is peri tou soteros hemon Iesou Christou kai peri tou antichristou. The work is addressed to one Theophilus, and the author cautions him against communicating to unbelievers what he was about to teach him, quoting Paul's directions to Timothy, |the things thou hast heard of me commit thou to faithful men.| The doctrine of the treatise as to the coming overthrow of the Roman power would give good reason for this caution. Jerome's title best describes the treatise, of which, after some introductory remarks on prophetic inspiration, Antichrist is almost exclusively the subject. The later title has some justification in the parallel between Christ and Antichrist, with which he begins, shewing how the deceiver had sought in all things to liken himself to the Son of God. He was to be, like Christ, a lion (Deut. xxxiii.22), a king, a lamb (Rev. xiii.11), he was to come in the form of a man, and to be of the circumcision; he was to send out false apostles and gather in a people, and as the Lord had given a seal to those who believe in Him, so should he, etc. The writer then quotes fully all the prophecies of Antichrist, and concludes that he shall be of the tribe of Dan; that Daniel's four kingdoms are the Babylonian, Median, Grecian, and Roman; that the ten toes of the image are ten kings among whom the Roman empire should be divided, that from among these Antichrist should arise and overthrow three of the kings, viz. those of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, and make an expedition against Tyre and Berytus, and then should gain the submission of the Jews, hoping to obtain vengeance by their means; that he should shew himself forth as God, and persecute to the death those who refuse to worship him; that he should reign three years and a half and then that he and his kingdom should be destroyed by Christ's second coming. For the problem of the number of the beast, while other solutions mentioned by Irenaeus are noticed, that of Lateinos is preferred. This is one of many coincidences shewing that Hippolytus used the treatise of Irenaeus against heresies and enumerated (§ iv.) by Overbeck in an able monograph on this tract Quaestionum Hippol. specimen. Overbeck discusses also the points of contact between this tract and Origen, deciding that these may be accounted for without supposing either writer indebted to the other.

(20) The text of a homily on the Holy Theophany was communicated to Fabricius by Gale from a MS. still preserved at Cambridge. There is also extant a Syriac translation of great part of this homily, viz. to the end of c.7 (Wright, Catal. of Syr. MSS. of Brit. Mus. ii.842). The ascription of the MSS. is not confirmed by any external evidence, nor is this homily mentioned in any list of the Hippolytine works, nor quoted by any ancient author. We do not, however, see anything in it which Hippolytus might not have written, and Wordsworth has pointed out a remarkable coincidence with the Refutation, viz. that in both man is spoken of as becoming a god by the gift of new birth and immortality.

(21) On the chair is enumerated peri charismaton apostolike paradosis. It is doubtful whether this is the title of one work or two. For various speculations see Fabricius, p.83. The most probable theory is that it treated of Montanist claims to inspiration.

(22) On the chair we have words which have been read odai eis pasas tas graphas. If the line describes only a single work it may denote hymns, one in praise of each of the books of Scripture and perhaps giving a poetical account of its contents.

(23) On the Hexaemeron. -- We now pass to the exegetical writings. This work is given in the lists of Eusebius And Jerome. The latter states (Ep. liv., ad Pammach. et Ocean. vol. i. p.525) that Ambrose had made use of it in his work on the same subject.

(24) eis ta meta ten hexaemeron (Eus.). In Genesim (Hieron.). From this we suppose the account of the 72 nations to have been taken.

(25) On Exodus. -- This we only know from Jerome's list. No quotations have been preserved, though Magistris makes a doubtful suggestion that Theodoret's citations from the logos eis ten oden ten megalen are from a commentary on the Song of Moses (Ex. xv.).

(26) There is extant a fragment (Lagarde, 51) of a commentary on |the blessings of Balaam|; and Trithemius also ascribes to Hippolytus a commentary on Numbers. An Arabic catena on the Pentateuch, of which a portion was pub. by Fabricius, ii.33-44, and the whole of Gen. by Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs, contains numerous extracts from an Hippolytus whom it describes as the expounder of the Targum. It is generally admitted that the scholia do not belong to our Hippolytus.

(27, 28) Theodoret cites several passages from the Discourse on Elkanah and Hannah. Another part of Samuel was the subject of a special treatise called by Jerome de Saul et Pythonissa, and in Gk. eis ten engastrimuthon, for so an imperfect line on the chair is generally, and, as we believe, correctly, completed.

(29) The Commentary on the Psalms. -- The existence of this work is testified by Jerome and by the inscription on the chair. Yet elsewhere when writing to Augustine Jerome gives a list of commentators on the Psalms (Ep. cxii., vol. i. p.754), leaving out Hippolytus and counting Eusebius as the next Greek commentator after Origen, either through mere forgetfulness or because Jerome had only read of Hippolytus, homilies on particular Psalms and some general observations on the whole book. Theodoret quotes from the commentary on Pss. ii. xxiii. and xxiv., and on the ode megale, which may mean Ps. cxix. These quotations may be from separate homilies, and not from the present work. A fragment published by Bandini comments on Ps. lxxviii. Several other fragments of doubtful genuineness are given by Magistris (Migne, x.722). Hippolytus classifies the Psalms according to their authors and inscriptions, and explains that they are all called David's because he originated the institution of temple psalmody, as the book of Esther is called after her, and not after Mordecai, of whom it has much more to tell, because Esther, by her act of self-sacrifice, was the originator of the whole deliverance. Hippolytus points out that the Psalms are not in chronological order, and supposes that Ezra did not find them all at once and placed them in books as he found them. The Greek, on the contrary, supposes that the chronological order was deranged to establish a mystical connexion between the number of a Psalm and its subject. Eusebius here follows Hippolytus.

(30) On Proverbs. Mentioned in Jerome's list. Some fragments have been preserved in catenae (Lagarde, pp.196-199). Others pub. by Mai (Bib. Nov. Pat. vii.) will be found in Migne (p.6).

(31, 32) Jerome enumerates a commentary on Ecclesiastes; both Eusebius and Jerome one on the Song of Songs. Lagarde gives one fragment from the former (No.136, p.200) and four from the latter (No.35, p.200; and Anal. Syr. p.87). One of these states that Hezekiah suppressed the works of Solomon on natural history, because the people sought in them for the recovery of their diseases, instead of seeking help from God.

(33, 34, 35) Jerome enumerates a commentary on Isaiah; Eusebius one on parts of Ezekiel. Assemani states (Bibl. Or. i.607) that there is Syriac testimony to the existence of one on Jeremiah.

(36) On Daniel. -- In Jerome's list. It is the subject of an article by Photius; is quoted by several other writers, and large fragments of it remain. In a most valuable contribution to Hippolytine literature, Bardenhewer (Freiburg, 1877) collects all the notices of this work, discusses the different extant fragments, and restores the original as far as possible. Catenae quote passages from the commentary of Hippolytus on Susanna, but the early lists do not mention this as a separate treatise, and Bardenhewer is probably right in thinking that it was the commencement of the commentary on Daniel, to which book that of Susanna was then commonly prefixed. The list of Ebed-Jesu attributes to Hippolytus an exposition of Susanna and of Daniel the Little. This writer's list of O.T. books includes Daniel, Susanna, and Daniel the Little. There is no evidence what is meant by the last. Hippolytus supposes Susanna to have been the daughter of the high-priest Hilkiah (II. Kings xxii.4) and sister to the prophet Jeremiah, and he probably, like Africanus, identified her husband with the Jehoiachin who was kindly treated by Evil-Merodach. Hippolytus thought, like so many of the Fathers, that the persons, institutions, and events of O.T. included, beside their literal meaning, a typical representation of things corresponding in the new dispensation. The remains of the commentary on Daniel contain a theory attested by Photius, that our Lord had come in the year of the world 5500, and that its end should be in the year 6000, that is, not until 500 years after the Incarnation. In Scripture proof of this calculation, Hippolytus appeals to the 5 1/2 cubits which he finds in Ex. xxv.10; to the sixth hour, John xix.14, which denotes half a day or 500 years; and to Rev. xvii.10. This 5500 years must be understood as round numbers, for the Chronicle of Hippolytus counts the exact number of years as 5502.

(37) On Zechariah. -- Known only from Jerome's list and the prologue to his commentary on Zechariah.

(38) On Matthew. -- We know of this from the prologue to Jerome's commentary on Matthew; and Theodoret quotes from a discourse on the parable of the talents, which, however, may have been a separate homily.

(39) On Luke. -- Two fragments are given by Mai (Lagarde, p.202), and Theodoret has preserved part of a homily on the two thieves.

(40) On the Apocalypse. -- In the list of Jerome, and mentioned by Jacob of Edessa (Eph. Syr. Opp. Syr. i.192) and Syncellus, 358. Some fragments are preserved in an Arabic Catena on the Apocalypse (Lagarde, Anal. Syr. app. pp.24-27). It appears that Hippolytus (who is described as pope of Rome) interpreted the woman (Rev. xii.1) to be the church; the sun with which she is clothed, our Lord; the moon, John the Baptist; the twelve stars, the twelve apostles; the two wings on which she was to fly, hope and love. He understood xii.10 to speak, not of an actual swallowing up by the earth of the hostile armies, but only that they wandered about in despair. He understood by the wound of the beast (xiii.3) the contempt and refusal of obedience with which Antichrist would be received by many at first; and by the healing of it the subsequent submission of the nations. The two horns (xiii.11) are the law and the prophets, for this beast will be a lamb outwardly, though inwardly a ravening wolf. Of the number of the beast, beside the Irenaean solutions, Lateinos, Euanthas, and Teitan, he gives one of his own, Dantialos, a name possibly suggested by the theory that Antichrist was to be of the tribe of Dan. The kings of the East (xvi.12) come to the support of Antichrist. Armageddon is the valley of Jehoshaphat. The five kings (xvii.13) are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander and his four successors. The next is the Roman empire, whose time was not yet completed; the seventh, who had not yet come, was Antichrist.

This enumeration includes all the works for which there is evidence of Hippolytine authorship, unless we add the letters with which it would seem Eusebius was acquainted. The list of genuine writings is quite enough to establish the immense literary activity of Hippolytus, especially as an interpreter of Scripture; and his labours must have given a great impulse to the study of God's word. As a writer he must be pronounced active rather than able or painstaking. Yet he must be admitted to deserve the reverence his literary labours gained from his contemporaries and the honour paid him at his death. For centuries afterwards his name was obscured; but his glory blazed out again when in the time of Charlemagne his relics were transferred to France. For some interesting particulars of this translation see Benson, Journ. of Classical and Sacred Philology, i.190. We quote his account of the visit of pope Alexander III. to his shrine in the church of St. Denys in 1159. |on the threshold of one of the chapels he paused to ask, ' Whose relics it contained?' 'Those of St. Hippolytus,' was the answer. 'I don't believe it -- I don't believe it' ('Non credo -- non credo'), replied the infallible authority. 'The bones of St. Hippolytus were never removed from the holy city.' But St. Hippolytus, whose dry bones apparently had as little reverence for the spiritual progeny of Zephyrinus and Callistus as the ancient bishop's tongue and pen had manifested towards these saints themselves, was so very angry that he rumbled his bones inside the reliquary with a noise like thunder ('ut rugitus tonitrui putaretur'). To what lengths he might have gone if rattling had not sufficed we dare not conjecture. But the pope, falling on his knees, exclaimed in terror, 'I believe, O my Lord Hippolytus -- I believe; pray be quiet.' And he built an altar of marble there to appease the disquieted saint.|

Literature. -- Arts. on Hippolytus are to be found in Tillem. vol. iv.; Ceillier, vol. i.; Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vii.183, ed. Harles, where is the best account of the older bibliography. The discovery of the Refutation made a good deal of the older literature antiquated. We have already referred to some of the more important writings which that discovery elicited. The more important special dissertations on the other works have been referred to under their respective sections. The most important discussion on the life and works of Hippolytus is that in vol. xi. of part i. of Bp. Lightfoot's Apost. Fathers, pp.137-477.

[G.S.]

Hippolytus (5), an apocryphal martyr
Hippolytus (5): Aug.10 (Bas: Men.), Aug.13 (Mart. Vet. Rom. Usuard.). An apocryphal martyr, first mentioned in the 5th or 6th cent. His story, as given in the martyrology of Ado, is taken from the spurious acts of St. Laurentius the Roman archdeacon, where we are told that that saint, when arrested, was delivered by the prefect Valerian into the custody of Hippolytus, a high military officer, who was converted and at once baptized by him, and thereupon sentenced to be torn asunder by wild horses. Döllinger, in Hippolytus and Callistus (Plummer's trans.), pp.28-39 and 51-60, discusses the rise and development of this legend, which has largely helped to confuse the story of the genuine Hippolytus, the Roman presbyter and writer of the 3rd cent. (q.v.) (cf. Bunsen's Christianity and Mankind, i.426). Döllinger fixes the composition of this story between the time of pope Liberius and that of Leo the Great, a period of about 70 years. The whole subject is in a state of great confusion in the martyrologies, which Döllinger has striven, with his usual critical power and vast knowledge, to arrange in some consistent order. Yet the impartial reader must feel sorely perplexed between the opposing theories of Döllinger and Bunsen. (Cf. for the more modern traditions regarding this martyr, Aug. Hare's Walks in Rome, ii.139.)

[G.T.S.]

Honorius, Flavius Augustus, emperor
Honorius (1), Flavius Augustus, emperor, b.384, d.423. A full account of him is given in the Dict. of Classical Biogr. He was declared emperor of the West in 394 at Milan, where he remained almost uninterruptedly till 399. He and his brother Arcadius seem to have been only ill-informed spectators of the tremendous events passing around them.

There is an important enactment against paganism in the first year of Honorius's reign (Cod. Theod. XVI. x.13) which forbids all sacrifices and apparently all public assemblage for pagan worship. The legislation against heresy is varied and stringent. In XVI. v.25 of the Theodosian Code all Theodosius's coercive edicts were re-enacted in their sharpest form and all concessions revoked. The Eunomians in particular were excluded from rights of military service, legal testimony and inheritance, though this special severity was relaxed soon after (v.27), in accordance with Theodosius's edicts (XVI. v.22-24). All heretical congregations were forbidden, and their celebration of the holy mysteries, with ordination either of bishops or presbyters, altogether interdicted. Two more of the five severe edicts of this year provided that slight error or deviation (|vel levi argumento a tramite Catholica|) shall be unsparingly crushed. Penalties for neglect of statutes on heresy are made capital (XVI. v.28), and c.29 is inquisitorial and applies to all employés and officials, civil or military. All found to be |culpae hujus affines| are to be expelled from the service and the city. This is dated Nov.23, Constantinople, so that Arcadius, or rather Eutropius, may be its author.

It is difficult to say how strictly the Honorian edicts against heresy were carried out, but no such persecution as that of St. Chrysostom is laid to the account of the emperor of the West. There is doubt, however, that the ecclesiastical legislation of 396 and following years was very severe. On March 2, 396 (T. C. XVI. v.30), all heretical places of assemblage were confiscated and all meetings interdicted. By edicts 31 and 32 the Eunomian clergy were banished and inquiries were directed to be made after their leaders. XVI. vii.6 deprived all apostates of testamentary power, their property was to go to their natural heirs; and by XVI. x.14 all privileges of pagan priesthood or ministry were done away. The Jews were protected by three edicts (XVI. viii.11-13).

The following edicts on church matters extend over 397 and 398. The Apollinarians were banished from Constantinople (T. C. XVI. v.33) on Apr.1, which was the only coercive measure of the year, and does not belong to Honorius. By XVI. ii.30, Jan.31, all ancient privileges were confined to bishops and clergy, with the proviso |Nihil extraordinarii muneris ecclesiae, vel sordidae functionis agnoscatur,| repeated in XI. xvi.22 (June 4). The Jews were protected from popular tumults (XVI. viii.12, 13), and equal privileges and respect shewn to high-priests and patriarchs as to the higher Christian clergy. In 398 there were severe statutes on heresy. By T. C. XVI. v.34 (Constantinople, but in Honorius's fourth consulship) Eunomian and Montanist clergy were banished from all cities and deprived of civic rights. If detected performing their rites in the country they were to be banished and the building confiscated, their books seized and burned, and keeping them was a capital offence. The Manicheans were specially attacked a.d.399 (c.35), and those who harboured them were threatened. C.36 allowed testamentary rights to the Eunomians, but forbad them to assemble or to celebrate the mysteries. Their clergy (|ministri sceleris, quos falso nomine antistites vocant) were to be banished. Clerical rights of sanctuary for criminals were formally refused (de Poenis, ix. xl.16), but intercession was permitted. This claim seems to have been pressed by the clerical and monastic body by violent means, which the authorities had difficulty in restraining. Cases in which |tanta clericorum ac monachorum audacia est, ut bellum velint potius quam judicium| were to be referred to the emperor for severer adjudication. Bishops were to punish the offences of monks. Debtors, public and private, including some unhappy curiales, had claimed sanctuary in churches (IX. xlv.3). They were to be removed |manu mox injecta.| No cleric or monk was to assert sanctuary by forcible defence for condemned criminals (XI. xxx.7). Bishops were recommended to ordain clergy from the monastic orders (VI. ii.32).

Ambrose had successfully resisted the reintroduction of the altar or statue of Victory into the senate-house in 384; and by 399 it may have appeared to Honorius's advisers that the time was come when paganism might be hastened out of existence. The paganism of the Roman senate and people was connected with the proudest associations of their public and domestic history, and it lingered long in the old patrician houses of the metropolis and among the rustic population. This was a source of weakness in keeping Christian emperors away from Rome. It may have been intended to end this division by direct attempts at suppressing paganism. The death-struggle of a paganism long fostered, and quite without real devotion, contributed to the final overthrow of Rome. Its immediate result in the life of Honorius seems to have been the undermining of Stilicho. The eunuch influence in both Eastern and Western courts had always been against him. There seems no doubt that Stilicho was opposed to anything which thinned his muster-rolls and weakened the hearts of his followers. Athanasius had advised Jovian (Broglie, L'Eglise et l'Empire romain, vol. v. p.362) to bear with error; to bear witness to truth as emperor, but trust for its victory to the God of truth. Stilicho hardly reached this, as is proved by the many laws against heretics and idolaters in the code; but the accusations of Orosius (vi.37) and the hostility of Zosimus on the pagan side seem to justify Gibbon's honourable estimate of him. In any case he had a few years of glory to come, and his great enemy was preparing for the defeats of Pollentia and Verona. In 398-399 Alaric was declared master-general of Eastern Illyricum by Arcadius, and raised on barbarian bucklers as king of Visigoths, with one man only between him and Rome (de Bello Getico, 503). Between 400 and 403 he had crossed Pannonia to the Julian Alps, taken Aquileia, subdued Istria and Venetia, and was threatening Milan. Honorius, now in his 15th year, thought only of flight into Gaul; but Alaric, overthrown by Stilicho at Pollentia and Verona, was allowed or compelled to retreat, and Honorius went with Stilicho to Rome to celebrate the last triumph of the empire (a.d.404). The customary games took place with great magnificence, and on this occasion St. Telemachus sacrificed himself by attempting to separate the gladiators. Honorius seems not to have prevented their exhibition, though there are traces of an attempt to substitute hunting scenes, races, and grand cavalry displays, among which seems to have been the ancient game of Troy. After a stay of some months at Rome, during which he appears to have honestly done all in his power to conciliate the senate, clergy, and people, Honorius determined (a.d.404) to fix his residence in the fortress of Ravenna, which was almost impregnable on the land side and afforded easy escape by sea. The Milanese entertained an affection for Honorius, and desired his return; but he had soon good reason to feel that his choice of residence had been a wise one, both strategically and for his own comfort.

The anti-pagan legislation of 399-400 prepared for the consummating decree of confiscation in 408. T. C. XVI. x.15 prohibited sacrifice, but restrained the destruction of temples, as monumental public works. In July there was an edict (c.16) for the destruction of rural temples (|sine turba ac tumultu|). Some concession was found necessary, for, in Sept., Tit. x.17 allowed the usual civic festivals and days of enjoyment (|festoset communem laetitiam|), but strictly without sacrifice. This is commented on by Gibbon in his 23rd chap., on the |Decay of Paganism,| vol. iii. p.16, where he points out how offerings of produce without sacrifice might be used, and the various evasions by which absolutely pagan celebration might elude Christian rule. Such usages might remain for ages, and be carried bodily into Christian country life by popular custom. This is matter of historical experience in all countries; and the May or Beltane, and other strange rites of the Teutonic races, bear witness to it in our own day. There was a final injunction this year (c.18) against destroying temples, if sacrifices in them had been thoroughly discontinued. XVI. v.35 was a severe edict against the Manicheans and their harbourers in Africa (June). In July (c.36) the Eunomians were released from intestacy and allowed freedom of movement. Their meetings were still forbidden and their profane mysteries made a capital offence. As the crudest form of Arianism, this heresy seems to have specially vexed Honorius and his advisers. An edict (de Religione, XVI. xi.1) gave bishops a claim to special authority in causes involving religious questions. |Quoties de religione agitur episcopos convenit agitare.| Ecclesiastics were to find substitutes in the curiae, appeals being allowed (XI. xxx.58, 59).

In a.d.400 the games were forbidden during Lent and the week before Easter, also on Christmas Day and Epiphany. Civic banishment and exclusion from society was decreed on bishops and clergy deprived or degraded by their fellow-clergy for seditious conduct (XVI. ii.35). Sons of priests were not to be forced into the ministry (XII. i.166).

The single edict of a.d.401 on ecclesiastical matters, addressed to Pompeianus, proconsul of Africa, excepted bishops and clergy actively employed in sacred duties from the |auraria pensio,| apparently (see Brissonus, Dict.) a tax on commercial men.

In 404 there were 14 decrees, chiefly on religious matters. Of XVI. viii.15, 16, 17, de Judaeis, 15 renews the general privileges of their patriarchs; 16 deprives or exempts Samaritans from military responsibilities; 17 withdraws the prohibition of a.d.400 as to collections in the synagogues. XVI. ii. (37 Aug.) releases from prison various clerical persons concerned in popular tumults in Constantinople, but expels them, with all other foreign bishops and clergy, from the city. XVI. iv.4, 5 (De his qui super Religione contendunt) coerces |the orthodox, who now forsake the holy churches, and assemble elsewhere ('alio convenire conantur'), and venture to dissent from the religion of Acacius, Theophilus, and Porphyrius,| now dominant in Constantinople -- Nov. Tillemont considers that all these edicts refer to the tumults which took place in 404 on the persecution of St. Chrysostom, except that which refers to officials, issued in Jan. The saint was not exiled till June.

There were 5 religious decrees out of 18 in 405. Two related to the Manichean and Donatist heresies, former statutes being put in force or threatened: |Una sit catholica veneratio, una Salus sit, Trinitatis par sibique congruens Sanctitas expetatur.| XVI. vi.3, 14 were against the repetition of baptism; which some persons seem to have thought might be repeated not only after heresy, but for forgiveness of repeated sins. Persons guilty of rebaptizing others were deprived of all their property, which was, however, secured to their heirs if orthodox. The contumacious were threatened with loss of all civil rights, and there was a heavy fine for connivance.

The irruption of the pagan and ferocious Radagaisus is dated by Gibbon 406, by Tillemont 405. He had to capitulate and was beheaded, and so many of his Germans were sold as slaves that their price fell to a single gold piece. After this invasion and in his desperate circumstances as the last general of Italy's last army, Stilicho apparently turned towards his worthiest enemy and felt the necessity of making terms with Alaric. Stilicho was slain at Ravenna Aug.23, 408.

Alaric now (Oct.408) crossed the Alps on pretence of a large claim of money. Honorius fled to Ravenna, and Alaxic besieged Rome for the first time, but accepted a large ransom in 409 and withdrew into Tuscany. He renewed the siege in the same year, and Rome submitted. Attalus was proclaimed emperor by him. In 410 the capture and sack of Rome followed. Alaric died before the end of the year, and in 412 the Goths under Adolf withdrew into Gaul, where Adolf remained until driven into Spain about 3 years after.

a.d.407, 408. T .C. XVI. v.40, 41 included the Manichean, Phrygian, and Priscillianist sects in the liabilities of the Donatists, i.e. loss of rights of property and succession, gift, sale, contract, will, and right to restrain orthodox slaves from worship. Heresy was expressly made a public offence, because crimen in religione divina in omnium fertur injuriam, but by c.41 simple |confessio| or acknowledgment of error and return to orthodox service sufficed for restoration to all rights, and Honorius shewed genuine anxiety to recall his people to the right path on easy terms. XVI. ii.38 enacted clerical immunities for Africa.

In 408, XVI. viii.18 stated that at the feast of Purim (|Aman ad recordationem|) the Jews were accustomed to burn or insult the cross. This was to cease, their other ceremonies were |infra contemptum Christianae legis,| and might continue. There were 6 statutes on heretics and pagans -- XVI. v.42-45, with XVI. x.19, and V. xiv.7 -- and XVI. ii.36, de Episcopis. Enemies to the Catholic faith were forbidden to serve in the emperor's palace guard. All statutes against Donatists, Manicheans, and Priscillianists were to be fully enforced, and a new sect called Caelicolae were, with them, to be deprived of all buildings for public assemblage. Donatists who had not yet confessed their heresy, but only withdrawn from Catholic service (|saevae religionis obtentu|) were included. Certain Jews and Donatists had insulted the Sacraments, and were to be punished; illegal assemblage for heretical worship was again prohibited. XVI. ii.39 provided that a degraded cleric who had renounced clerical office should be at once made a curialis and forbidden to resume his orders.

a.d.409. De Haereticis, XVI. v.46, Jan., 47, June. Two edicts to enforce laws on Jews, Gentiles, or pagans, and heretics. Tillemont says that the death of Stilicho caused a general outbreak of heretics, the Donatists of Africa in particular asserting that his laws against them were now abrogated. Two edicts in March and July forbad amusements (|voluptates|) on Sunday and exempted Jews from public calls on their Sabbath (II. viii.25, 26).

In 410 there were 4 decrees (out of 19) on heresy. The Montanists, Priscillianists, and others were forbidden military service, and other means of exemption from curial burdens (XVI. v.48). To the intestacy of the Eunomians was added the reversion of bequests to the fisc, if no orthodox heir survive; c.51 altogether abrogated a former imperial oraculum or rescript, by which certain heretics had been allowed to meet in secret. XVI. xi.3 confirmed all existing religious statutes.

a.d.411, 412. XVI. v.52, Jan. Heavy fines, or total confiscation of property, on obstinate Donatists. Pressure was to be exercised by masters on their slaves, and by the local authorities on coloni. Heretical clergy banished from Africa (c.53). Jovinian and others, his followers, to be corporally punished and banished to island of Boas, on coast of Dalmatia. XVI. ii.40, 41, de Episcopis. Church properties exempted from fugatio (a kind of land-tax by acreage, Brisson), also from repairs of public roads and bridges. By c.41 clergy were to be tried only before their bishops and unnecessary scandal avoided by only bringing accusations which could be definitely proved. For perfect tolerance towards the Jews, XVI. viii.20, 21.

In 418 Wallia and his Visigoths were settled in the S.W. of France with Toulouse for their capital. Britain was entirely lost, and the Armoricans were maintaining themselves in independence. A fresh revolt under another Maximus seems not to have been suppressed till 422. Wallia, however, acted in Spain as a feudal ally of the empire, won a succession of victories over the Alani, Vandals, and Suevi, and restored great part of the peninsula to Honorius, who is said by Prosper's Chronicle to have entered Rome in triumph a second time. The Burgundians occupied the two provinces which still bear their name, and the Franks were settled on the Rhine. All continued to acknowledge the title of Honorius, and to hold titles from the empire; and all accepted the civil law and magistracy of Rome. Honorius himself had confirmed the independence of Britain and Armorica c.410, and died of dropsy in his 40th year (423), Aug.27.

His later legislation has little historical interest, but the enactments on paganism and heresy from 413 to 423 were as follows: Two against repetition of baptism, a.d.413; two against Donatists, v.54, 55. These comprise (XVI. vi.6, 7) the settlement effected by Marcellinus on Honorius's part at Carthage, between the orthodox and the Donatists, which, Tillemont says, brought the heresy to an end. Against any public assemblage for heretical purposes, v.56. By v.57 Montanist congregations were forbidden; their clergy to be banished if they attempted to ordain others. Harbourers to be deprived of the house or property where the heretic remained. Their places of meeting, if any were left standing, to be the property of the church. By c.58 houses of Eunomian clergy were confiscated to the fisc; or any in which second baptism has been administered. Their clergy were exiled, and they were again deprived of testamentary and military rights. All these, except the last, were addressed to Africa. By III. xii.4 marriage with a deceased wife's sister or husband's brother was forbidden. XVI. x.20. All pagan priests were required to return to their native place. Confiscation to the church or the emperor of lands and grounds used for pagan purposes. To become a pagan was now a capital offence. In 416 Gentiles, or persons guilty of participation in pagan rites, were excluded from the army and from official or judicial positions. In 423 Honorius renewed all his edicts against heresy, with special mention of Manicheans, Phrygians, Priscillianists, Arians, Macedonians, Eunomians, Novatianists, and Sabbatiani. XVI. v.59, 60. He was able to say that he believed there were very few pagans remaining, and so far his persecution may seem to have been successful, as with the Donatists and others. Other and more powerful causes were at work, and error and idolatry were taking other forms. The remarkable statute (XVI. x.22 and 23) ran thus: |Paganos, si qui supersunt, quanquam jam nullos esse credamus, promulgatorum legum jam dudum praescripta compescant.| The next (c.23) stated that pagans caught in acts of idolatrous ceremonial ought to be capitally punished, but are only subject to loss of property and exile. He denounced the same sentence in c.24 on Manicheans and Pepuzitae, who were worse than all other heretics, saying, |quod in venerabili die Paschatis ab omnibus dissentiant.| He ended with a strong caution against any violence on Christian pretences to pagans or Jews leading quiet and legal lives, with penalty of triple or fourfold f restitution. Two more decrees this year restored all fabrics taken from the Jews, even for church purposes; or, in case the holy mysteries had been celebrated in such buildings, equal accommodation should be provided for the former holders.

Honorius possessed no character except a timid docility, but with some natural goodness of heart or gentleness, otherwise he could not have continued to reign so disastrously for 28 years. It must be remembered, in excuse of his coercive action, that persecution was no invention of his or Theodosius's, but an inheritance of the empire. Such questions as the expediency or the possibility of perfect toleration, the limits of pressure or coercion, and what body in the state is to exercise it, have been debated in theory and hewn out in practice, from the beginnings of society, and are still unsettled. Nor can they be solved, unless the relation of the individual conscience to the public, and of the individual soul to the church, were accurately known and defined. That there is a point at which the church militant must cease to strive with invincible ignorance or determined error, leaving them to the civil power, as civil dangers or nuisances only, seems a rule which the sad experience of 1800 years has but imperfectly taught the Christian world. Only the great spirit of Athanasius seems to have anticipated it in his day, though he did not always act on it. The world knew no tolerance, and never had known it in Honorius's time; and his position as emperor compelled him to do as other emperors had done before him. The temptation to a Christian emperor to hold heresy or paganism an offence against the State, which he personified (at least on earth, and in heathen theory in heaven), was too much for man. Without asserting that all the faults of the Christian church may be traced to the fatal gift of Constantine, we cannot doubt that her alliance with the temporal power proved as dangerous as her investiture with temporal rule was fabulous. Pagan emperors had claimed to rule as personal and present divinity, and this claim had always specially embittered their persecution of the Christian faith. It was never, in fact, withdrawn; the ruler of Rome was invested with an awe beyond man, and that, in fact, descended to the mediaeval popedom. Constantine himself had allowed his statues to be worshipped with incense and lights, and so most unhappily encouraged the earlier iconodulism of half-Christianized Greeks. But the connexion he instituted between the temporal and spiritual power tempted a Christian despot like Theodosius, under guidance of a great representative of the church, to think that God was surely with them in whatever persecuting edict they set forth; and thus Justinian's words, |Sacrilegii instar est dubitare| (Cod. IX. xxix.3), were literally meant, and logically, if not conscientiously, believed. The empire could not forget its traditions. Excuses which are admitted by Christians for Aurelius or Diocletian ought to be considered in behalf of Theodosius and his sons. The fierceness and necessities of their age must be allowed as palliations.

Theodosius's 15 edicts in 15 years, from 380-384, extend over the ministers, assemblies, and persons of heretics, and make not only the Manichean heresy punishable by death, but the Quartodeciman error as to keeping Easter. Ambrose, like other Churchmen, could not abstain from the use of the mighty arm of flesh at his command, and the institution of inquisitors must certainly have been an ecclesiastical measure. It should be remembered that the Christian faith had by its own influences so elevated and organized the influence of the human conscience as to have become a temporal power by the nature of things. The Christian spiritual power ruled men's persons and fortunes; the bishop was in fact obeyed by his large share of the population, and became a temporal magistrate because men made him arbitrate for them. (See Guizot, Civ. in Europe, lect. ii. p.34, ed. Bohn.) He was consequently involved with the civil power in coercive measures of all kinds and in all directions.

Lastly, the empire was divided between Rome and Constantinople, but Italy between Rome and Milan or Ravenna. Ambrose must have felt that the remaining paganism of Rome was his chief difficulty, and his influence must have been accordingly exerted on Honorius in his first days. Hence, perhaps, his supineness and indifference to the fate of Rome, and perhaps, in a great degree, the paralysis of Italian defence as soon as the barbaric genius of Stilicho was withdrawn.

A coin of Honorius is figured in Smith's Dict. of G. and R. Biogr. s.v. The countenance has an inexpressiveness which may have belonged to him in a special degree, but extends to most portraiture after the 3rd cent. Another represents the emperor in the paludamentum, bearing a globe and the labarum. On another, with Vota Publica, are two emperors with nimbi, which is important evidence of the derivation of that symbol from imperial effigies (see Tyrwhitt, Art Teaching of Prim. Ch., Index |Nimbus|).

[R.ST.J.T.]

Hormisdas, bp. of Rome
Hormisdas (8), bp. of Rome after Symmachus from July 26, 514, to Aug.6, 523, Anastasius and Justin being successively emperors of the East and Theodoric ruling the West as king of Italy. Hormisdas was a native of Frusino in Campania. Pope Silverius (acc.536) is said to have been his son (Liberat. Breviar.22). The memorable event of his pontificate was the restoration of communion between Rome and Constantinople, which had been interrupted since 484, in connexion with the Eutychian heresy. [[301]FELIX III.; ACACIUS.] The first overtures were made in 515 by the emperor Anastasius, being moved thereto by Vitalian, a Scythian, the commander of the imperial cavalry, who, having taken up the cause of orthodoxy, made himself master of Thrace, Scythia, and Mysia, and marched with an army of Huns and Bulgarians to the gates of Constantinople. Anastasius had to procure peace by assenting to 3 conditions, one being that he should summon a council at Heraclea, the pope being invited and free discussion allowed (Theophan. Chron. ad an. Imp. Anast.23). In 515 the emperor wrote to Hormisdas, desiring his concurrence in restoring unity to the church by means of such a council; and Hormisdas, after a guarded reply, sent legates to Constantinople with letters to the emperor and Vitalian, and a statement of the necessary conditions for union. These were: (1) The emperor should issue to all bishops of his dominion a written declaration accepting the council of Chalcedon and the letters of pope Leo. (2) A like declaration should be publicly signed by the Eastern bishops, who should also anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter the Fuller, and Acacius, with all their followers. (3) Persons exiled for religion should be recalled and their cases reserved for the judgment of the apostolic see. (4) Such exiles as had been in communion with Rome and professed the catholic faith should first be recalled. (5) Bishops accused of having persecuted the orthodox should be sent to Rome to be judged. Thus the emperor proposed a free discussion in council; the pope required the unqualified acceptance of orthodoxy, and submission to himself as head of Christendom, before he would treat at all. He did not reject the idea of a council, but, from his point of view, none was wanted. The Easterns had but to renounce their errors and accept the terms of reconciliation dictated by the apostolic see, and peace would be at once restored.

This attempt failed, as Anastasius, though now professing orthodoxy, demurred to erasing the name of Acacius from the diptychs. But he continued his overtures. In 516 he sent two distinguished laymen to Rome with a letter to Hormisdas. But Hormisdas continued resolute, and the emperor dismissed the bishops already assembled at Heraclea for the intended council. In a letter to Avitus of Vienne (517) the pope, referring to this embassy, complains of the fruitless and perfidious promises of the Greeks, but rejoices at the faithfulness of the churches of Gaul, Thrace, Dardania, and Illyricum, which had stood firm against persecution in the communion of Rome. It appears that 40 bishops of Illyricum and Greece had renounced obedience to their metropolitan of Thessalonica and sent to Hormisdas to seek communion with Rome (Theophan. Chron.).

Hormisdas, building on the emperor's political necessities, sent in 517 a second embassy to the East with increased demands. They were charged with a rule of faith (regula fidei) for the signature of all who desired reconciliation with Rome which was more exacting than any previous document. The signers were to declare that, mindful of the text |Thou art Peter,| etc., the truth of which has been proved by the immaculate religion ever maintained by the apostolic see, they profess in all things to follow that see, and to desire communion with it. Accordingly they were to accept the decrees of Chalcedon and the |tome| of pope Leo, and also all letters on religion he had ever written; and not only to anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Fullo, and Acacius, with all their followers, but also exclude from their diptychs all who had been |sequestrated from catholic communion,| which is explained to mean communion with the apostolic see. Such demands ended the negotiations, and Anastasius peremptorily dismissed the legates, and sent a reply to Hormisdas (July 11, 517) which ended: |We can bear to be injured and set at naught; we will not be commanded| (Hormisd. Epp. post. Ep. xxii. Labbe).

Persecutions were now renewed in the East. The monasteries of the orthodox in Syria Secunda were burnt and ago monks massacred. The survivors sent a deputation to the pope, acknowledging in ample terms the supremacy of |the most holy and blessed patriarch of the whole world,| |the successor of the Prince of the Apostles,| and |the Head of all.| They implore him to exercise his power of binding and loosing in defence of the true faith, and to anathematize all heretics, including Acacius (ib.). To this appeal Hormisdas replied in a letter to all the orthodox in the East, exhorting them to steadfastness in the faith of Chalcedon, and to patience under present straits (in Act. V. Concil. Constantin. Labbe, vol. v. p.1111).

The death of Anastasius (July 9, 118) and the accession of the orthodox Justin changed the aspect of affairs. During divine service at Constantinople, while John the Cappadocian (who had lately succeeded Timotheus as patriarch) was officiating, the populace, who had been all along on the orthodox side, seem to have made a riot in the church in the impatience of their orthodox zeal, crying, |Long live the emperor!| |Long live the patriarch!| They would not brook delay. By continued cries, by closing the doors of the church and saying they would not leave it till he had done what they wanted, they compelled him to proclaim the acceptance of the four general councils, including Chalcedon. A synod, attended by some 40 bishops, ratified what the patriarch had done. Letters were sent to various Eastern metropolitans, including those of Jerusalem, Tyre, and Syria Secunda, who forthwith reported to the synod the full acceptance of orthodoxy by their several churches (ib. p.1131, etc.). Coercive measures were used by Justin. In two edicts he ordered the restoration of the orthodox exiled by Anastasius, the acknowledgment of the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs of all churches, and declared heretics incapable of public offices, civil or military.

The pope insisted upon the erasure of the name of Acacius and the subscription of the rule of faith rejected by Anastasius as the first steps to restoration of communion. In 519 Hormisdas sent a legation to Constantinople, charged with letters to the emperor and patriarch, and also to the empress Euphemia and other persons of distinction, including three influential ladies. Anastasia, Palmatia, and Anicia. They carried with them the libellus described above, to be signed by all who desired reconciliation.

At Constantinople they were met by Vitalian, Justinian, and other senators, and received by the emperor in the presence of the senate and a deputation of four bishops to represent the patriarch. The libellus was read; the bishops had nothing to say against it, and the emperor and senators recommended them to accept it. The patriarch proved unwilling to sign it as it stood; but at length, after much contention, it was agreed that he might embody the libellus unaltered in a letter, with his own preamble. This was done, the names of Acacius and his successors in the see, Fravitas, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus, and of the emperors Zeno and Anastasius, were erased from the diptychs; the bishops of other cities, and the archimandrites who had been previously reluctant, now came to terms; and the legates wrote to the pope expressing thankfulness that so complete a triumph had been won without sedition, tumult, or shedding of blood. The patriarch's preamble was a protest against the claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion to Constantinople and an assertion of the co-ordinate authority of his own see. He says, |Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.| The same view of the unity of the two sees is expressed in his letter to Hormisdas. Even Justin, in his letter to the pope, guards against implying that the authority of Constantinople was inferior to that of Rome, saying that |John, the prelate of our new Rome, with his clergy, agrees with you,| and that |all concur in complying with what is your wish, as well as that of the Constantinopolitan see.| Peace being thus concluded at Constantinople, a deputation was sent to Thessalonica, headed by bp. John, the papal legate, to receive the submission of that church. Dorotheus, bp. of Thessalonica, tore the libellus in two before the people, and declared that never would he sign it or assent to such as did. Hormisdas, on hearing of this, wrote to the emperor, requiring that Dorotheus should be deposed. But Dorotheus was summoned to Constantinople to be tried, sent thence to Heraclea while his cause was being heard, and eventually allowed to return to his see. He and his church were now restored to Catholic communion, and he wrote a respectful letter to the pope (a.d.520) expressing great regard for him personally and for the apostolic see. Hormisdas replied that he was anxious to believe in his innocence, and in his being the author of the peace now concluded, but expressed dissatisfaction that he |delayed even to follow those whom he ought to have led.| and hoped he would |repel from himself the odium of so great a crime, and in reconciliation to the faith would at length follow the example of those who had returned.| It thus seems clear that Dorotheus, though professing orthodoxy and restored by the emperor to his see, had not so far fully complied, if he ever did, with the pope's terms (Inter Epp. Hormisd. lxii. lxiii. lxxii. lxxiii.).

Notwithstanding the general triumph of orthodoxy throughout the East, except at Alexandria, the unbending pertinacity of Hormisdas still caused difficulties. In 520 the emperor Justinian and Epiphanius (who had succeeded John as patriarch) wrote urgent letters to him on the subject. They alleged that, though the condition was complied with in the imperial city, yet no small part of the Orientals, especially in the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Oriens, would not be compelled by sword, fire, or torments to comply, and they implored the pope not to be more exacting than his predecessors. The pope persisted in his demand, and urged Justin, as a duty, not to shrink from coercion. He authorized Epiphanius to deal at his discretion with various cases (ib. lxxii. Concil. Constant. act. V.. Labbe, vol. v. p.1119).

A nice question, arising out of the now defined orthodox doctrine of One Person and Two Natures in Christ, came before Hormisdas for settlement. There being but one Personality in the Incarnate Word, and that Divine, it seemed correct to say that this Divine Person suffered, and yet to say this seemed to attribute passibility to the Godhead. It was undoubted Nestorian heresy to deny that lie Whom the Blessed Virgin brought forth was God. But He Who was brought forth was the same with Him Who suffered on the Cross. On the other hand |God was crucified| had been a favourite Monophysite formula, used to emphasize their doctrine of the absorption of the human nature into the divine; and great offence had formerly been given to the orthodox by the addition of |Who wast crucified for us| to the Trisagion by Peter Fullo. The adoption of this addition at Constantinople under Anastasius had caused a popular tumult, and it was probably its abrogation during the reaction under Justin that caused certain Scythian monks to defend the formula, and to maintain that |one of the holy and undivided Trinity| suffered. The question was laid before the legates of Hormisdas, when in Constantinople, a.d.529. They decided against the Scythian monks, arguing that the faith had been fully and sufficiently defined at Chalcedon and in the letter of pope Leo, and that the formula of the monks was an unauthorized novelty, likely to lead to serious heresy. The monks contended that its adoption was necessary for rendering the definitions of Chalcedon distinct against Nestorianism. Vitalian seems to have supported them. Justin and Justinian begged the pope to settle the question. He wrote to desire that the monks should be kept at Constantinople; but they managed to get to Rome to lay their case before him (Ep. lxxix. Labbe). At length they left Rome, having publicly proclaimed their views there. Hormisdas does not seem to have actually condemned the expression of the monks, though annoyed by their propounding it, but spoke strongly against it as an unnecessary novelty. In the end, however, their view triumphed. For in 533 the emperor Justinian issued an edict asserting that |the sufferings and miracles are of one and the same -- for we do not acknowledge God the Word to be one and Christ another, but one and the same: for the Trinity remained even after the Incarnation of the One Word of God, Who was of the Trinity; for the Holy Trinity does not admit of the addition of a fourth person. We anathematize Nestorius the man-worshipper, and those who think with him, who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our God, Incarnate, made man, and crucified, was One of the holy consubstantial Trinity| (Lex Justinian. a.d.533 Cod. I. i.6; Joann. Pap. ii. Epp. in Patr. Lat. lxvi.18 B), and it has since been accounted orthodox to affirm that God suffered in the flesh, though in His assumed human, not in His original divine, nature. (See Pearson On the Creed, art. iv.).

Hormisdas died early in Aug.523, having held the see 9 years and 11 days. He, as well as all the popes during the schism with the East, except the too conciliatory Anastasius, has had his firmness acknowledged by canonization, his day in the Roman Calendar being Aug.6. His extant writings consist of letters, 80 being attributed to him, one of which, to St. Remigius (in which he gives him vicariate jurisdiction over the kingdom of Clovis which he had converted, is probably spurious, as it implies that Clovis was still reigning, though he had died in 511, more than two years before the election of Hormisdas. Most of the remaining 70 letters refer to the affairs of the East, several to the metropolitan see of Nicopolis in Epirus (Hormisd. vi.-ix., xvii.-xxii.).

Three letters of Hormisdas (xxiv.-xxvi.), to John, bp. of Tarragona, Sallustius, bp. of Seville, and the bishops of Spain in general, give the two prelates vicariate jurisdiction over E. and W. Spain, exhort against simony and other irregularities, and direct the regular convention of synods. Cf. Thiel, Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i.

Hormisdas had great administrative and diplomatic abilities, was singularly uncompromising and firm of purpose, and one of the most strenuous and successful assertors of the supremacy of the Roman see.

[J.B -- Y.]

Hosius (1), a confessor under Maximian
Hosius (1), (Osius), a confessor under Maximian, and bp. of Corduba, the capital of the province of Baetica in Spain. He took a leading part on the catholic side in the controversies of the first half of the 4th cent. For nearly 50 years he was the foremost bishop of his time, held in universal esteem and enjoying unbounded influence. Eusebius says, |He was approved for the sobriety and genuineness of his faith, had. distinguished himself by the boldness of his religious profession, and his fame was widely spread| (Vit. Cons. bk. ii. cc.63, 73). Socrates calls him |the, celebrated Hosius| (H. E. ii.29). Sozomen says: |He was honoured for his faith, virtuous life, and steadfast confession of truth| (H. E. i.16). Athanasius is never weary of repeating his praises. |of the great Hosius,| he says, |who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for he is not an obscure person, but of all men the most illustrious| (Apol. de Fugâ, § 7). Considering his great renown and his prominent part in affairs, it is remarkable how very little is known of his personal history. There seems no reason to doubt Eusebius, Athanasius, and others, who make him a native of Spain. Athanasius says (Hist. Arian. § 45) that when Hosius was more than 100 years old, and had been more than 60 years a bishop, he was summoned by Constantius from Spain to Sirmium, and there subscribed an Arian formula about the middle of a.d.357. Soon afterwards he returned to his native country and died. We may probably, therefore, place his birth c.256, as Tillemont does (Mém. t. vii. p.302, 4to, ed.).

The common view that he suffered for the Christian faith in Diocletian's persecution between 303 and 305 is more than doubtful. We have his own testimony in his letter to Constantius (the son of Constantine) preserved by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. § 44). |I was a confessor at the first, when a persecution arose in the time of your grandfather Maximian.| These words can hardly refer to the general persecution enjoined by Diocletian. The allusion seems to be to the persecution of which the chief promoter was Maximian, the Augustus and colleague, not the son-in-law, of Diocletian. Maximianus Herculius was made Caesar in 285, and Augustus in 286, as is shewn by coins and inscriptions (cf. Clinton, Fasti Romani, vo1. i. p.328), and for six years the Roman empire was divided between these two rulers, Diocletian having the East and Maximian the West. In 292 a further partition of the empire took place by the appointment of two Caesars, Constantius Chlorus (the father of Constantine) and Galerius Maximianus. When Constantius was made Caesar in 292, Maximian's half of the empire was subdivided. |Cuneta quae trans Alpes Galliae sunt Constantio commissa; Africa Italiaque Herculio| (Aur. Vict. de Caesar, xxxix.30). On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305, Gaul, with Italy and Africa, was given to Constantius, and the rest of the empire to Galerius. But Constantius, content with the dignity of Augustus, refused to administer Italy and Africa (Eutropius, x.1). Orosius similarly says that Constantius, |Italiam, Africam, Hispaniam et Gallias obtinuit. Sed, vir tranquillissimus, Gallia tantum Hispaniaque contentus, Galerio caeteris patribus cessit| (Hist. vii.25). Constantius, says Sozomen (H. E. i.6), was not willing that Christianity should be accounted unlawful in the countries beyond the confines of Italy, i.e. in Gaul, Britain, or the region of the Pyrenaean mountains as far as the western ocean. These facts shew that in the division of the empire Spain was always an appendage of Gaul, and under the same administration. If so, it was under the jurisdiction of Constantius, and, as both Lactantius and Eusebius affirm, that Constantius took no part in the persecution of the Christians, it could not have been in his period that Hosius became a confessor. When, then, did he suffer? We have his own testimony that he had been a confessor in the time of Maximian. Probably it was in some special and local persecution carried out under the orders of Maximianus Herculius while he was sole ruler of the West, before Constantius was appointed Caesar in 292, and much before the general persecution authorized by the edicts of Diocletian in 303. It is very probable that between 286 and 292, while Maximian was sole ruler of the West, there were many martyrdoms in Spain as well as in Gaul and Italy. Hosius would have been then between 30 and 36 years old, and it is far more likely that he suffered persecution and witnessed a good confession then than later under the mild rule of Constantius. Beyond Hosius's own statement, we have no contemporary evidence upon the subject.

As the bishops and officers of the church generally suffered first in the outbreaks of persecution, it is more than probable that Hosius was already bp. of Corduba when he became a confessor. His earliest public act with which we are acquainted was his presence as bp. of Corduba at the synod of Elvira, but the date of this synod, like that of other events in his history, is involved in much obscurity. Mendoza, who has written more fully upon it than any other author, is of opinion that it should be placed in 300 or 301. Nineteen bishops from different parts of Spain were present, hence it may be regarded as representing the whole church of Spain. The president was Felix of Acci (Guadix) in Baetica, probably the oldest bishop present. The name of Hosius comes next. As a rule the order of signatures to the Acts of councils indicates the order of precedence among the bishops, either according to the date of their consecration or the importance of their episcopal sees (Hefele, Hist. of Councils, vol. i.64, Eng. trans.). As Hosius was probably not over 45 years old, his high position could not have been due to his age, but must have been in right of his see. We infer, therefore, that Corduba then held the first place among the cities of Spain.

It is now very difficult to form a true conception of Corduba in its ancient grandeur. In the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd cents. Spain reached a very high development in the social system of Rome. Roman influence had so spread in Baetica that the natives had forgotten their own language. Roman schools were opened in the coloniae and municipia, the most brilliant being at Corduba and Osca. For nearly two centuries Spain produced men remarkable in all kinds of culture. Lucan and the two Senecas were born at Corduba, its schools thus furnishing rivals even to Vergil and Cicero. In the time of Hosius this intellectual activity had considerably declined, and pre-eminence in literary culture had passed to the province of Africa. But Corduba must still have retained a high place in the social development of the time. A man called to such an important see would most probably be one of some personal distinction. Baronius (ad ann.57) attaches little importance to this synod, which he suspects of Novatianist tendencies. The very first canon, indeed, decrees that adults who have sacrificed to idols have committed a capital crime and can never again be received into communion. Such a denial of pardon to those who lapsed under persecution was the chief error of Novatian (Socr. H. E. iv.28). The Novatianist discipline was very rigid in other respects also, especially with reference to carnal sins, and many of the canons of Elvira relate to such offences, and their stern and austere spirit shews how deeply the Fathers at Elvira were influenced by Novatianist principles. Though we cannot trace the hand of Hosius in the composition of these canons, yet as he was a leading member of the synod, its decrees would doubtless be in harmony with his convictions.

For 12 or 13 years after this synod nothing is known of his life. He then seems to have been brought into close personal relations with the emperor Constantine, and thenceforward his acts form part of the history of his time. It would be interesting to know how Hosius acquired the great influence over Constantine which it is believed he exercised up to the time of the Nicene council. But there is not a single passage in any ancient writer which relates the origin of their connexion.

The absence of Hosius from the synod of Arles, Aug.1, 314, the most numerously attended council that had hitherto been held in Christendom, is remarkable. Bishops from Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Britain were assembled as representatives of the whole Western church. Constantine was absent, being engaged in his first war with Licinius in Pannonia. Possibly Hosius may have been in attendance upon the emperor, as we learn from Eusebius (Vit. Const. ii.4) that in this campaign Constantine took with him |the priests of God,| for the benefit of their prayers and |to have them constantly about his person, as most trusty guardians of the soul.| Traces exist of the presence of Hosius at the imperial court in 316, when the Donatists, having been condemned at the council in Nov. at Milan by the emperor himself, spread abroad a report, as we learn from Augustine (cont. Ep. Parmen. lib. i. c.8, vol. ix. p.43, ed. Migne), that by the advice of Hosius, a friend of Caecilian, the catholic bp. of Carthage, they had been condemned.

In the relations between Christianity and paganism there is ground for thinking that the position of Hosius at this time must have been somewhat of a representative one on the Christian side; otherwise it is difficult to understand why the emperor should have addressed to him a law declaring free such slaves as were emancipated in the presence of the bishops or clergy (a.d.321; Cod. Theod. lib. iv. tit.7, col.379, Hänel's ed.). By the end of 323 Constantine had become sole master of the Roman empire in the East and West, and took measures for the re-establishment of religious concord throughout his dominions. To this end, says Socrates (H. E. i.7), |he sent a letter to Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, and to Arius, by a trustworthy person named Hosius, who was bp. of Corduba in Spain, whom the emperor greatly loved and held in the highest estimation,| urging them not to contend about matters of small importance (Eus. Vit. Const. ii.63). That Hosius, a bishop of the Western church, and speaking only Latin, should be sent to a city in the East in which Greek civilization had reached its highest development is a striking proof of the high opinion that the emperor had of him. Moreover, his mission gave him precedence as an imperial commissioner over the bp. of Alexandria, whose see ranked next to that of Rome. It is not very clear what Hosius did at Alexandria, the accounts being very imperfect and confused. He apparently devoted himself with great earnestness to refuting the dogmas of Sabellius (Socr. H. E. iii.7); but as to his steps with reference to Arius, history is silent. We know, however, that he failed to extinguish the flame which the Arians had lighted. Finding it impossible to terminate these controversies, he had to return to Constantine and acknowledge that his mission had failed. The emperor thereupon, probably by his advice (Sulpit. Sever. Hist. ii.55, |Nicaena synodus auctore illo [Hosio] confecta habebatur|), resolved to convoke an oecumenical council and to invite bishops from all quarters. The council was held at Nicaea in 325. The part of Hosius in it has been much discussed. (1) Was he the president of the council, and if so (2) did he preside as legate of the pope? There is no doubt of his very prominent position. Unfortunately no complete account of the acts of the synod is extant, if such ever existed.

(1) Roman Catholic writers, such as Baronius, Nat. Alexander (vol. vii. p.390), Fleury, Alzog, and Hefele (Conc. i.39), maintain that he was president, but as the legate of the pope. They refer to Gelasius (lib. i. c.5), who says, |Osius ex Hispanis, . . . Silvestri Episcopi maximae Romae locum obtinebat| -- epechon kai ton topon, Mansi, ii.806 D. There is a little ambiguity in these words. A man may occupy a place which rightly belongs to another, but it does not follow that he is his representative because he sits in his seat. At this epoch, although the bp. of Rome held the first place among all his brethren, partly because Rome was the principal city in the world, yet his ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not appear to have extended beyond the churches of the ten provinces of Italy, called in the versio prisca of the 6th Nicene canon |suburbicaria loca.| The churches of the East were mainly under the jurisdiction of the metropolitans of Alexandria or Antioch, and these great bishops would not brook the interference of their Western brethren. Moreover, the great strength of Christianity lay then in the East. The West was still imperfectly Christianized. It is difficult, therefore, to believe that Hosius presided at the council of Nicaea -- an Eastern synod -- as legate of the pope.

(2) But when we inquire why the usual order of precedence was departed from, we are a little at a loss for a satisfactory answer. Du Pin (Nouv. Bib. t. ii. pt.2, p.315) thought that Hosius presided because already acquainted with the question at issue and highly esteemed by the emperor. Similarly Schröckh (Kirchengeschichte, Thl. v. § 336). This seems the most probable explanation. It would be difficult to understand how the bishop of a see in Spain took precedence over the great patriarchs of the East if he had not been appointed by the emperor. Hosius was at the height of his reputation and enjoying the fullest confidence of his imperial master. He was, says Dean Stanley (Eastern Church, lect. iii.), |as the world-renowned Spaniard, an object of deeper interest to Christendom than any bp. of Rome could at that time have been.| The power of the popes of Rome was not yet sufficiently consolidated for their claim to preside to have been admitted. Eleven years before, at the great council of the West at Arles in 314; the emperor appointed Marinus, bp. of Arles, to preside, while pope Silvester was represented there, as at Nicaea, by two presbyters and two deacons (cf. Hefele, Conc. i.181). The council of Nicaea was convoked by Constantine, and there is good reason to believe that Hosius held the foremost place by his appointment. He is believed to have been the emperor's adviser in ecclesiastical matters. The part that Constantine, then only a catechumen, took in the proceedings at Nicaea shews that he must have received some instruction as to the debated questions from an orthodox teacher. It is very unlikely that he could have of himself given such a philosophical explanation of the Homoousion as he did (see the letter addressed by Eusebius to the Christians at Caesarea and preserved by Socrates, H. E. i.8). Again, the emperor's letter to the churches respecting the council (Eus. Vit. Const. iii.17-20) bears unmistakable traces of the hand of a theologian. Dean Milman (Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. p.364, crown 8vo ed.) calls the letter of Constantine to Arius and Alexander |in its spirit a model of temper and conciliation. It is probable that the hand of Hosius is to be traced in its composition. His influence was uniformly exercised in this manner. Wherever the edicts of the government were mild, conciliating, and humane, we find the bp. of Corduba.|

At the conclusion of the council Hosius seems to have returned to Corduba. For nearly 20 years he lived in retirement in his own diocese. No trace of a return to the court of Constantine remains, and it does not appear that they ever met again. We must look to the history of the time for some explanation of the cause for these altered relations. Constantine left Asia Minor for Rome, which he reached c. July 326. His brief stay there was marked by deeds of cruelty. In the midst of the Vicennalia the people of Rome heard with regret that his son Crispus had been put to death. Not long afterwards the young Licinianus, his nephew, a boy of 12, was killed, at the suggestion, it is said, of the empress Fausta, whom retribution soon overtook. There followed a great number of public executions. The true causes of these events are involved in mystery, but Constantine is said to have become a prey to remorse. A great change certainly took place in his character after he became sole master of the Roman empire. He was spoiled by prosperity (Eutropius, lib. x. cc.4, 6). He became arrogant and impatient of counsel, distrustful and suspicious. This moral deterioration was accompanied with great vacillation in his religious opinions. A few years after the council of Nicaea he fell under Arian influences. Arius was recalled; and at the instigation of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his adherents, Athanasius was condemned upon a false charge and banished to Gaul a.d.335). Not long before his death, in 337, Constantine received baptism from Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop. This change in the character and opinions of Constantine was the true cause of his altered relations with Hosius. As the influence of the Arians over his mind increased, that of his old counsellor would of necessity decline.

Hosius does not appear to have been present at any of the synods between those of Nicaea and Sardica, nor to have taken any public part in the controversies between Athanasius and the Arians during 20 years. In 345 the emperor Constans summoned Athanasius to Milan from Rome, and informed him that he had been urged by certain bishops (believed to have been pope Julius, Hosius, and Maximinus of Trèves; cf. Hilar. Frag.2, p.16) to use his influence with his brother Constantius, that a council might be called to settle the questions concerning him, the place of meeting to be Sardica. Athanasius while in Milan was directed by Constans to go to Gaul to meet Hosius and travel with him to Sardica (Athan. Apol. ad Const. c.4). Hosius was now nearly 90 years old. So long a journey implies considerable vigour of body, and that age had not changed his convictions nor impaired his zeal. Nor had his long retirement lessened his influence or the unbounded respect felt for him by his contemporaries. In the encyclical letter of the council of Sardica to be found in Athanasius (Apol. contr. Arian. c.44), Hosius is spoken of as |one who on account of his age, his confession, and the many labours he had undergone, is worthy of all reverence.| His presidency in this case is affirmed in express terms by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. c.16): |The great Hosius was president of the council.| The Acts shew him as the life and soul of the synod, proposing most of the canons and taking the foremost part in the proceedings. The synod afforded a great opportunity for his wisdom and conciliatory spirit. He specially sought to conciliate the Eusebian party, of which he writes to Constantine (ib. c.44): |on my own account I challenged the enemies of Athanasius, when they came to the church where I generally was, to declare what they had against him. This I did once and again, requesting them if they were unwilling to appear before the whole council, yet to appear before me alone.| The Eusebians, however, rejecting all overtures, held a synod of their own at Philippopolis, whence they sent an encyclical letter to the churches, condemning Hosius, Julius, bp. of Rome, and others, chiefly for holding communion with Athanasius. Hosius, they said, had also always been a persecutor of a certain Marcus of blessed memory, a strenuous defender of evil men, and a companion of wicked and abandoned persons in the East (Hilar. Frag. iii. t. ii. col.674, ed. Migne).

Until 354 we hear nothing further of him. An extant letter written to him by pope Liberius, early in 354, shews the great respect in which he was held. Liberius writes, full of grief, because Vincentius of Capua, one of his legates in whom he had placed great confidence, at a synod consisting chiefly of the Eusebian party, held at Arles in 353, had consented under constraint to give up communion with Athanasius (ib. vi. t. ii. col.688).

During his long life Hosius had preserved an unblemished name and been a consistent and uncompromising supporter of the Nicene faith. At length, when 100 years old, he gave way for a brief moment to the violence of his persecutors, and consented under torture to hold communion with Valens and Ursacius (Athan. Hist. Arian.45), a concession which has been much magnified and misrepresented.

In 355 a synod was convoked by Constantius at Milan, which deserved, says Tillemont (Mém. t. vi. p.362), the name of a robber synod even more than did the false council of Ephesus. At this synod the Eusebians first openly declared in favour of the dogmas of Arius, and endeavoured to secure their acceptance by the church. The emperor called upon the orthodox bishops, under penalty of banishment, to join in the condemnation of Athanasius. Most of them gave way, and consented to condemn Athanasius and to hold communion with the Arians (Rufinus, lib. i. c.20). The few who stood firm were banished, bound with chains, to distant provinces: Dionysius, exarch of Milan, to Cappadocia, or Armenia; Lucifer to Syria; Eusebius of Vercelli into Palestine (cf. Athan. Apol. Const.27). In 366 Liberius, bp. of Rome, was summoned to Milan, where Constantius was residing, and allowed three days to choose between signing the condemnation of Athanasius or going into exile. He chose the latter, and was banished to Beroea in Thrace. From the first the object of the Arians had been to gain the great Hosius. |As long as he escaped their wicked machinations they thought they had accomplished nothing. We have done everything, they said to Constantius. We have banished the bishop of the Romans, and before him a very great number of other bishops, and have filled every place with alarm. But these strong measures are as nothing, nor is our success at all more secure so long as Hosius remains. Begin then to persecute him also, and spare him not, ancient as he is. Our heresy knows not to honour the hoary hairs of the aged| (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 42). At their solicitation the emperor had previously summoned Hosius to Milan, c. a.d.355. On his arrival he urged him to subscribe against Athanasius and hold communion with the Arians. The old man, full of grief that such a proposal should have been even made to him, would not for one moment listen to it. Severely rebuking the emperor and endeavouring to convince him of his error, he withdrew from the court and returned to his own country. Constantius wrote frequently, sometimes flattering, sometimes threatening him. |Be persuaded,| he said, |and subscribe against Athanasius, for whoever subscribes against him thereby embraces with us the Arian cause.| Hosius remained fearless and unmoved, and wrote a spirited answer to, Constantius, preserved by Athanasius, the only extant composition by Hosius (ib. § 44). The emperor continued to threaten him severely, intending either to bring him over by force or to banish him, for, says Socrates (H. E. ii.31) the Arians considered that this would give great authority to their opinions. Finding that Hosius would not subscribe, Constantius sent for him to Sirmium and detained him there a whole year. |Unmindful,| says Athanasius (l.c.), |of his father's love for Hosius, without reverence for his great age, for he was then 100 years old, this patron of impiety and emperor of heresy used such violence towards the old man that at last, broken down by suffering, he was brought, though with reluctance, to hold communion with Valens and Ursacius, but he would not subscribe against Athanasius| (a.d.357). He says elsewhere (Apol. pro Fug. § 7) that Hosius |yielded for a time to the Arians, as being old and infirm in body, and after repeated blows had been inflicted upon him above measure, and conspiracies formed against his kinsfolk.| Socrates gives similar testimony (l.c.; cf. Newman, Arians, c. iv. § 3).

It is difficult to determine which of the confessions of faith drawn up at Sirmium was actually signed by Hosius. Whether there was only one synod of Sirmium, or two or three at intervals of a few years, is also a question upon which opinions have differed widely. The predominant opinion is expressed by Valesius in a note to Socrates (H. E. ii.30), viz. that there were three synods there, each issuing a different creed. The first, in 351, at which Photinus was deposed, published a confession in Greek. At the second, in 357, Hosius was compelled to be present and his subscription was obtained by force to a creed written in Latin, called by Hilarius |blasphemia apud Sirmium per Osium et Potamium conscripta| (Opp. ed. Migne, t. ii. col.487). The third Sirmian creed, called the |Dated Creed| from its naming the consuls, was agreed upon at a convention of bishops in May 359 This was the creed afterwards produced by Ursacius and Valens at the synod of Ariminum (cf. Athan. de Synod.48). Socrates, indeed (H. E. ii.30), says that three creeds were drawn up at the same synod of Sirmium as that which deposed Photinus (a.d.351) -- one in Greek and two in Latin -- neither of which agreed together. But this is clearly an error. Sozomen says (H. E. iv.12) that |Hosius had certainly, with the view of arresting the contention excited by Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius, consented, though by compulsion, with some other bishops at Sirmium to refrain from the use of the terms Homoousion and Homoiousion, because such terms do not occur in the Holy Scriptures and are beyond the understanding of men.| These very expressions occur in the creed set forth at Sirmium in Latin, and afterwards translated into Greek, which Socrates gives (l.c.), and there is no room to doubt that this was the confession which Hosius signed.

It may be doubted, says Dean Stanley (East. Ch. lect. vii. c.3), |whether in his own age the authority of Hosius in the theological world was not even higher than that of Athanasius.| The Arians, therefore, would naturally make the most of the concession wrung from him. Those who constantly slandered Athanasius would not have many scruples about calumniating Hosius. Epiphanius (Haer.73), about 20 years later, says that the Arians thought they could condemn the teaching of the church as to the Homoousion by producing letters fraudulently procured from the venerable Hosius, stating that the substance was dissimilar. Sozomen says (H. E. iv.12) that Eudoxius, bp. of Antioch, c.358, upheld the heresy of Aetius, that the Son is dissimilar to the Father, and rejected the terms Homoousion and Homoiousion. When he received the letter of Hosius he spread a report that Liberius had also made the same admission (iv.15). These letters were most probably spurious. There is reason also to believe that the creed actually signed by Hosius was interpolated and sent into the East in his name. This may perhaps explain the expression of Hilarius (contr. Constantium, c.23, col.580, ed. Migne, vol. ii.) when he speaks of |deliramenta Osii et incrementa Ursacii et Valentis| (cf. Newman's notes to Athanasius, Eng. trans. vol. i. p.162).

Exaggerated reports of the fall of Hosius were spread by the Arians far and wide. His perversion was their strongest argument against the Catholic party in Gaul. To this a contemporary writer, Phoebadius, bp. of Agennum, replies (Lib. contra Arian. c.23, Patr. Lat. ed. Migne, vol. xx. col.30): |Novit enim mundus quae in hanc tenuerit aetatem qua constantia apud Sardicam et in Nicaeno tractatu assensus sit et damnaverit Arianos. . . . Si nonaginta fere annis male credidit, post nonaginta illum recte sentire non credam.| The Donatists also, whose views Hosius had opposed equally strongly, did not fail to calumniate him. Augustine vindicates his memory (Lib. contra Parmen. lib. i. c.4, § 7, ed. Migne, vol. ix. col.38). Marcellus and Faustinus, two presbyters who were followers of Lucifer of Cagliari, relate (Libellum ad Theodos. c.383 or 384) that on the return of Hosius to Spain, Gregory, bp. of Elvira, refused to hold communion with him, and as Hosius was in the act of pronouncing his deposition he was struck dumb and fell from his seat. It is very possible that the first part of the story may have had some foundation, as a letter is extant (Hilar. Frag. xii. t. ii. col.713, ed. Migne) from Eusebius of Vercelli to Gregory of Spain (c.360), congratulating him on having withstood the transgressor Hosius. Among ancient writers, no one has referred to the lapse of Hosius so bitterly as Hilary of Poictiers. This is the more remarkable as he had never heard of the Nicene Creed until he went into exile (Hilar. de Syn. c.91, ad fin. vol. ii. col.545 ed. Migne). He charges Hosius and Potamius, bp. of Lisbon, with having drawn up the second creed of Sirmium, which he designates in one place (Opp. ed. Migne, t. ii. col.487) as the |blasphemia,| in another (col.599) as |deliramenta Osii|; and says (col.539) that his fall was due to his having been too anxious to get away from Sirmium and die in his own country. These hard sayings occur in Hilary's treatise de Synodis, written probably in 358, a year after the second synod of Sirmium, at which Hosius was forced to be present. Hilary himself tells us (de Syn. c.63, t. ii. col.533) that the majority of those with whom he was then living in exile had no true acquaintance with God -- in other words, held Arian opinions -- |Ex majori pane Asianae decem provinciae intra quas consisto, vere Deum nesciunt.| Whatever tidings came to him would therefore reach him through Arian channels. His means of information are not to be compared with those of Athanasius. He is, moreover, the only ancient writer who says that Hosius had any hand in the composition of the creed of the second council of Sirmium, and any combination between Hosius and Potamius, the reputed author with him of this confession, is for other reasons most improbable. The one had been all his life a consistent supporter of the Nicene Creed, the other a renegade. Moreover, Hosius at this time was about 100 years old. At such an age men do not willingly invent new creeds; they are far more likely to cling tenaciously to old ones.

Sulpicius Severus (c.404 or 405) speaks of the lapse of Hosius as resting on a popular rumour which seemed quite incredible unless extreme old age had enfeebled his powers and made him childish (Hist. Sac. lib.2).

To clear his memory from the charges of Hilary it is sufficient to point out that the synod of Sardica spoke of Hosius as a man of a |happy old age, who, on account of his age, his confession, and the many labours, he has undergone, is worthy of all reverence.| So public a testimony to his high character is enough to silence all detraction, and the affectionate and reverential language in which the great Athanasius describes the passing frailty of his venerable friend, the father of the bishops, is very different from the furious and intemperate tone in which it is referred to by Hilary. |This true Hosius, and his blameless life,| says Athanasius, |were known to all.| As he relates the violence used towards him, he expresses only the tenderest commiseration for his friend; but against Constantius, his persecutor, his indignation knows no bounds (Hist. Arian.46).

There is some doubt whether Hosius succumbed to the violence used against him at Sirmium and died there in 357, or whether, after subscribing the Arian formula, he was permitted to end his days in Spain. This involves the further question -- whether before his death he recanted, and was readmitted into the Catholic church, or retained his Arian opinions to the last. The story told by the Luciferians and the charges brought against his memory by his old enemies the Donatists serve at least to shew that, according to ecclesiastical tradition, he died in Spain. The question is fully examined by Baronius (sub ann.357, cc. xxx.-xxxvii.), who does not believe the story told by the Luciferians. The story of the apostate Marcellinus is not confirmed by any contemporary writer. Had it been true, it must have been known to Athanasius, who says distinctly that Hosius yielded to the outrages of the Arians |for a time, as being old and infirm in body| (Apol. pro Fug. § 5), and that |at the approach of death, as it were by his last testament, he bore witness to the force which had been used towards him, and abjured the Arian heresy and gave strict charge that no one should receive it| (Hist. Arian.45). These words prove that his lapse was but a temporary one, that he died in communion with the church, and in the midst of his friends. Hilary's words as to his anxiety to leave Sirmium andbe buried in his own country imply that he obtained his wish to return to Spain. The date of his death is a little uncertain, but from Marcellinus we learn that it was soon after his return to Spain and before the concession he had made to the Arians had become widely known. As the treatise of Athanasius (Hist. Arian.) was written between 358 and 360, it must have been before that period. Some writers favour the end of 357; others think he lived till 359.

His profound acquaintance with Christian doctrine was combined with a singularly blameless and holy life. He seems to have had great tact and judgment and a conciliatory disposition. The shadow cast upon his name by the concession extorted from him by the Arians must not be allowed to obscure the rightful honour due to him for his labours and sufferings on behalf of the Catholic faith. |Even Christianity,| says Dean Milman (Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. p.427, ed.1875), |has no power over that mental imbecility which accompanies the decay of physical strength, and this act of feebleness ought not for an instant to be set against the unblemished virtue of a whole life.|

A very full account of his life, and a discussion of various points in his history, will be found in Gams (Die Kirchengesch. von Spanien, Band ii. pp. i-309, Regensburg, 1864). See also Hefele, Conciliengesch. vols. i. and ii., of which there is an Eng. trans.; Tillemont, Mém. t. vii. p.300, 4to ed.; Dom Ceillier, s.v. t. iii.392, new ed.; Zahn, Const. der Gr. u. die Kirche, 1876; Florez, España Sagrada, La Provincia de Bética, vol. ix. and x. (Madrid, 1754).

[T.D.C.M.]

Hunneric, king of the VAndals
Hunneric (Ugnericus, Hunerix, Honorichus), eldest son and successor (Jan.24, 477) of Genseric, king of the Vandals. Sent to Rome in his youth as a hostage for the observance of the treaty his father had made with Valentinian III., he married (462), after the sack of Rome, the captive Eudocia, eldest of the daughters of that emperor. Soon after he ascended the throne he ordered diligent search to be made for Manicheans, of whom he burnt many and exiled more across the sea, being commended for this by Victor. His subjects were oppressed with taxes and exactions, but he relaxed the strictness of his father's laws against the orthodox, and, at the intercession of his sister-in-law Placidia, the widow of the emperor Olybrius, and the emperor Zeno, allowed (a.d.481) a bp. of Carthage (Eugenius) to be elected, the see having been vacant since the death of Deogratias in 457. He made this concession upon condition that a similar liberty should be allowed the Arian bishops and laity in Zeno's dominions, or else the newly elected bishops and all other orthodox bishops with their clergy would be banished to the Moors.

To secure the succession to his son, Hunneric sent his brother Theodoric into exile and put to death his wife and children. The Arian patriarch of Carthage, who was supposed to favour Theodoric, was burnt alive, and many of his clergy shared his fate or were thrown to wild beasts; nor did Hunneric spare the friends his father had commended to him on his death-bed if suspected of being inclined to support his brother. Hunneric now took measures against the orthodox. The influence of Eugenius on the Vandals was especially dreaded by the Arian clergy, at whose suggestion the king forbade him to preach in public or to allow persons in Vandal dress to enter Catholic churches. The bishop replied that the house of God was open to all. A great number of Catholics, being the king's servants, wore the Vandal dress. Men were therefore posted at the church doors with long rakes, with which any person entering in Vandal dress was seized by the hair as so to tear off hair and scalp together. Many died in consequence. Hunneric next deprived Catholics who held posts at the court or belonged to the army of their offices and pay; many of the former were forced to work in the fields near Utica and the latter were deprived of their property and exiled to Sicily or Sardinia. A law confiscating the property of deceased bishops and imposing a fine of 500 solidi on each new bishop was contemplated, but abandoned for fear of retaliatory measures against the Arians in the Eastern empire. Virgins were hung up naked with heavy weights attached to their feet, and their breasts and backs burnt with red-hot irons to extort, if possible, a confession of immorality, which might be used against the bishops and clergy. Many expired under the torture and the survivors were maimed for life. A body of Catholic bishops, priests, deacons, and laity, numbering 4,976, was sent into banishment among the savage Moors of the desert. Victor gives a touching description of their sufferings during their marches by day and in crowded dens at night.

These cruelties were only the prelude of a more extensive and systematic persecution. Hunneric, on Ascension Day, 483, published an edict to Eugenius, and the other Catholic or, as he termed them, Homoousian bishops, ordering them to assemble at Carthage on Feb.1, to meet the Arian bishops in conference and decide the points in controversy between them, promising them a safe-conduct. Even before the conference, however, the persecution began. Victor tells of various bishops cruelly beaten and sent into exile, while on Sept.20, Laetus, bp. of Nepta, was burnt to terrify the rest of the Catholic party. When the meeting assembled, the Catholics were indignant to find Cyrila, the Arian patriarch, in the presidential chair. After mutual recriminations the orthodox presented a statement of their belief and their arguments for it. The Arians received it with indignation, as in it the orthodox claimed the name of Catholics, and falsely suggested to the king that the disturbance was the fault of their opponents. Hunneric seized this pretext for publishing, on Feb.25, an edict he had already prepared and distributed to the magistrates throughout his dominions, ordering all churches of the orthodox party to be handed over with their endowments to the Arians, and further, after reciting the penalties imposed on the Donatists in 412 and 414 by edicts of Honorius (Codex Theodosianus, XVI. v.52, 54), enacting that the Catholics should be subject to the same penalties and disabilities. Pardon was promised to those who should renounce Catholicism before June 1. Persecution, however, began before the three months' grace had expired. The first to suffer were the bishops assembled at Carthage. They were expelled from the town with nothing but the clothes they had on, and were obliged to beg their bread. The inhabitants were forbidden to give them shelter or food under pain of being burnt alive with their whole families. While outside the walls in this miserable state, they were summoned to meet at the Temple of Memory persons sent by the king, and were required to take an oath to support the succession of Hilderic, the king's son, and to hold no correspondence with countries beyond the sea. On these conditions the king promised to restore them their churches. Some took the oath, but others refused, excusing themselves by the precept |Swear not at all.| They were then told to separate, the names and sees of the bishops of each party were taken down, and they were all sent to prison. A few days afterwards those who had taken the oath were told that, as they had infringed the precept of the Gospel, the king banished them to the country, assigning them land to cultivate, on condition that they should not chant, pray, baptize, ordain, or receive any into the church. To those who had refused was said, |You refused to swear because you did not wish our master's son to succeed him. Therefore you are exiled to Corsica, where you shall cut timber for our master's navy.| Of the 466 attending the council, 88 fell away to Arianism; of the others one was a martyr, one a confessor, 46 were banished to Corsica, and the rest to the country parts of Africa.

Meanwhile throughout Africa a most cruel persecution raged, neither age nor sex being a protection; some were cruelly beaten, others hung, and some burnt alive. Noble ladies were stripped naked and tortured in the public streets. Victorian, a former proconsul of Carthage, was the most illustrious victim of the persecution. Victor's fifth book is full of accounts of the constancy and suffering, of the Catholics. Eugenius was entrusted to the custody of the cruel Antonius, the Arian bp. of a city in Tripoli, where his hardships brought on a stroke of paralysis. Bp. Habetdeus was bound and gagged by Antonius and forced to undergo the rite of a second baptism, which was imposed also by force or fraud upon many of the orthodox. The Vandals, who had renounced Arianism, were treated with peculiar cruelty. Some had their eyes put out, others their hands, feet, noses, or ears cut off. Hunneric, to insult Uranius, and Zeno who had sent him to intercede for the Catholics, ordered some of the cruellest scenes of torture to be enacted in the streets through which he had to pass on his way to the palace.

The most celebrated event of the persecution occurred at Typasa, a seaport town of Mauritania. A former notary of Cyrila's having been consecrated as the Arian bishop of that town, the greater part of the citizens took ship to Spain. A few, not finding room on board, remained, whom the Arian bishop on his arrival endeavoured, first by persuasion and then by threats, to induce to become Arians. They refused, and having assembled in a house, began publicly to celebrate the divine mysteries. The bishop thereupon dispatched secretly to Carthage an accusation against them to the king, who sent an officer with orders to have their tongues cut out and their right hands cut off before the assembled province in the forum. This was done, but they continued to speak as plainly as before. This is attested by Victor, who was probably an eye-witness; by the eye-witnesses Aeneas of Gaza, the Platonic philosopher (Theophrastus, in Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxv.1000), Justinian (Cod. i.27), and Marcellinus (Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat. li.933) all of whom had seen some of these persons at Constantinople; by Procopius (de Bello Vandalico, i.8); Victor Tununensis (Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxviii.946); and pope Gregory the Great (Dial. iii.32 in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxvii.293), and has generally been considered not only a miracle, but the most remarkable one on record after apostolic times. The variety of the witnesses and the consistency of their testimony on all material points give it claims to belief, such as few apparently preternatural events possess. Dr. Middleton was the first to suggest (Free Inquiry, 313-316) that, assuming the account true, it by no means follows that the event was miraculous, a position he maintains by instances of a person born without a tongue, and of another who had lost it by disease, who were able to speak. Mr. Twistleton (The Tongue not Essential to Speech) has shewn this explanation probable. He gives numerous cases of similarly mutilated persons in Eastern countries, and of persons in England whose tongues had been removed by surgical operations, who could still pronounce distinctly all letters except d and t; one of the latter he had actually seen and conversed with. He sums up by saying |The final result seems to be that questions connected with the phenomenon of speech in the African confessors are purely within the domain of natural science, and that there is no reason for asserting or suspecting any miraculous intervention in the matter.| The persecution continued to rage till Hunneric died, on the following Dec.11. Like the persecutor Galerius his body mortified, and bred worms.

Sources. -- Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Vandalica, ii. iv. and v. in Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii., with Ruinart's Appendix; Procopius de Bello Vandalico, i.8; Appendix to Prosper's Chron. in Migne, Patr. Lat. li.605; Chron. of Victor Tununensis in ib. lxviii. Gibbon (c. xxxvii.) gives a good narrative of the persecution, and Ceillier (Auteurs sacrés, x.452-462) may also be consulted.

[F.D.]

Hyginus, bp. of Rome
Hyginus (1), bp. of Rome after Telesphorus, probably from 137 to 141. Our early authorities for the dates and duration of his episcopate are confused, as in the case of other bishops of that early period. Anastasius (Lib. Pontif) says that he was a Greek, son of an Athenian philosopher, of unknown genealogy. Several spurious decretals are assigned to him. See Mart. Rom. under Jan.11; also Lightfoot, on the Early Roman successions, Apost. Fath. part i. vol. i.

[J.B -- Y.]

Hypatia, lady of Alexandria
Hypatia (1). Socrates (H. E. vii.15) says: |There was a lady in Alexandria, by name Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon. She advanced to such a point of mental culture as to surpass all the philosophers of her age and to receive the office of lecturer in the Platonic school, of which Plotinus had been the founder, and there expound all philosophic learning to any desirous of it. Students of philosophy came from all quarters to hear her. The dignified freedom of speech, which her training had implanted in her, enabled her to appear even before the public magistrates with entire modesty; none could feel ashamed to see her take her station in the midst of men. She was reverenced and admired even the more for it, by reason of the noble temperance of her disposition. This then was the woman upon whom malicious envy now made its attack. She was wont to have frequent communications with Orestes [the prefect]; this aroused enmity against her in the church community. The charge was that it was through her that Orestes was prevented from entering upon friendly relations with the bishop [[303]CYRIL]. Accordingly some passionate fanatics, led by Peter the Reader, conspired together and watched her as she was returning home from some journey, tore her from her chariot, and dragged her to the church called Caesarium; there they stripped her and killed her with oyster shells, and, having torn her in pieces, gathered together the limbs to a place called Cinaron, and consumed them with fire. This deed occasioned no small blame to Cyril and the Alexandrian church; for murders, fightings, and the like are wholly alien to those who are minded to follow the things of Christ. This event happened in the fourth year of the episcopate of Cyril, in the consulships of Honorius (for the tenth time) and Theodosius (for the sixth time) in the month of March, at the season of the fast|c (i.e. Mar.415). Little can be added to this. Synesius of Cyrene (afterwards bp. of Ptolemais) was a devoted disciple of hers. According to Suidas, she married Isidorus. No trustworthy account connects Cyril directly with her murder.

[J.R.M.]

Hypatia, writer
Hypatia (2). In the synodical book of the council of Ephesus is given a letter, from its style evidently the work of a female writer (unnamed), which is falsely attributed to Hypatia (1) the philosopher of Alexandria. it complains of the condemnation and banishment of Nestorius, which took place 17 years after the death of Hypatia. The writer is struck by the teaching of the Christians that God died for men; she founds her plea for Nestorius on an appeal to reason and Scripture. Baluze, Concil. App. p.837 (Paris, 1683, fol.); Ceillier, viii.387.

[W.M.S.]

Hypatius, presbyter and hegumenus
Hypatius (19), presbyter and hegumenus in the first half of the 5th cent. of the monastery in Bithynia, once presided over and afterwards abandoned by Rufinus. His Life, by Callinicus his disciple (Boll. Acta SS.17 Jun. iii.303), tells how his zeal brought him into collision with his lukewarm bishop Eulalius of Chalcedon. Understanding that Nestorius, before his formal accusation, was broaching novel opinions, Hypatius had the patriarch's name removed from the office books of the church adjoining his monastery (§§ 14, 38, 51, 53). Eulalius, alarmed at this daring act, which amounted to an excommunication of the all-powerful patriarch, remonstrated and threatened, but Hypatius undauntedly persisted. Again, when Leontius, the prefect of Constantinople, was about to re-establish at Chalcedon the Olympic games abolished by Constantine, Hypatius, finding that Eulalius would do nothing, openly declared that he would by main force defeat this restoration of idolatry at the head of his monks, though it should cost him his life. Leontius, having had warning of this opposition, relinquished the project and returned to Constantinople (§ 45) A certain ascetic archimandrite, Alexander, from Asia Minor, having taken up his abode in the capital with 100 monks, gained much reputation for sanctity, but in consequence of his bold rebukes of the imperial household was ordered to leave. The exiles betook themselves to the church of Hypatius, but Eulalius, obeying orders from the palace, had them beaten and expelled. Hypatius immediately welcomed them into his monastery and dressed their wounds. The bishop threatened fresh violence, but the rustic neighbours volunteered a defence, and a riot was imminent when a messenger from the empress ordered that they should not be molested. Alexander and his party retired in peace and founded a monastery near, the inmates bearing the name of Acoemetae, the Sleepless (§ 57; ACOEMETAE in D. C. A., and the Bollandist account of their founder in Acta SS. Jan. i.1018).

[C.H.]

<<  Contents  >>





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