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

A Dictionary Of Christian Biography And Literature by Henry Wace

Letter J

Jacobus, bp. of Nisibis
Jacobus (4) or James, bp. of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, called |the Moses of Mesopotamia,| born at Nisibis or Antiochia Mygdoniae towards the end of 3rd cent. He is said to have been nearly related to Gregory the Illuminator, the apostle of Armenia. At an early age he devoted himself to the life of a solitary, and the celebrity he acquired by his self-imposed austerities caused Theodoret to assign him the first place in his Religiosa Historia or Vitae Patrum -- where he is entitled ho megas. During this period he went to Persia for intercourse with the Christians of that country and to confirm their faith under the persecutions of Sapor II. Gennadius (de Script. Eccl. c.1) reports that James was a confessor in the Maximinian persecution. On the vacancy of the see of his native city he was compelled by the popular demand to become bishop. His episcopate, according to Theodoret, was signalized by fresh miracles.

In 325 he was summoned to the council of Nicaea (Labbe, Concil. ii.52, 76). A leading part is ascribed to him by Theodoret in its debates (Theod. u.s. p.1114). He is commended by Athanasius, together with Hosius, Alexander, Eustathius, and others (adv. Arian. t. i. p.252). According to some Eastern accounts, James was one whom the emperor Constantine marked out for peculiar honour (Stanley, Eastern Church, p.203). His name occurs among those who signed the decrees of the council of Antioch, in Encaeniis, A.D.341, of more than doubtful orthodoxy (Labbe, Concil. ii.559), but no mention of his being present at this council occurs elsewhere (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vi. note 27, les Arensi; Hefele, Councils, ii.58, Eng. tr.). That the awfully sudden death of Arius at Constantinople, on the eve of his anticipated triumph, A.D.336, was due to the prayers of James of Nisibis, and that on this emergency he had exhorted the faithful to devote a whole week to uninterrupted fasting and public supplication in the churches, rests only on the authority of one passage, in the Religiosa Historia of Theodoret, the spuriousness of which is acknowledged by all sound critics. The gross blunders of making the death of the heresiarch contemporaneous with the council of Nicaea, and of confounding Alexander of Alexandria with Alexander of Constantinople, prove it an ignorant forgery. In the account of the death of Arius obtained by Theodoret from Athanasius (Theod. H. E. i.14; Soz. H. E. ii.20) no mention is made of James, nor in that given by Athanasius in his letter to the bishops. As bp. of Nisibis James was the spiritual father of Ephrem Syrus, who was baptized by him and remained by his side as long as he lived. Milles, bp. of Susa, visiting Nisibis to attend a synod for settling the differences between the bps. of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, c.341, found James busily erecting his cathedral, towards which, on his return, Milles sent a large quantity of silk from Adiabene (Assemani, Bibl. Or. tom. i. p.186). On the attempt, three times renewed, of Sapor II. to make himself master of Nisibis, A.D.338, 346, 350, James maintained the faith of the inhabitants in the divine protection, kindled their enthusiasm by his words and example, and with great military genius and administrative skill thwarted the measures of the besiegers. For the tale of the final siege of 350, which lasted three months, and of the bishop's successful efforts to save his city, see Gibbon, c. xviii. vol. ii. pp.385 ff. or De Broglie, L'Eglise et l'Empire, t. iii. pp.180-195. See also Theod. u.s. p.1118; H. E. ii.26; Theophan. p.32. Nisibis was quickly relieved by Sapor being called away to defend his kingdom against an inroad of the Massagetae. James cannot have long survived this deliverance. He was honourably interred within the city, that his hallowed remains might continue to defend it. When in 363 Nisibis yielded to Persia, the Christians carried the sacred talisman with them. (Theod. u.s. p.1119; Soz. H. E. v.3; Gennad. u.s. c.1.)

Gennadius speaks of James as a copious writer, and gives the titles of 26 of his treatises. Eighteen were found by Assemani in the Armenian convent of St. Anthony at Venice, together with a request for some of his works from a Gregory and James's reply. Their titles -- de Fide, de Dilectione, de Jejunio, de Oratione, de Bello, de Devotis, de Poenitentia, de
Resurrectione, etc. -- correspond generally with those given by Gennadius, but the order is different. In the same collection Assemani found the long letter of James to the bishops of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, on the Assyrian schism. It is in 31 sections, lamenting the divisions of the church and the pride and arrogance which caused them, and exhorting them to seek peace and concord. These were all published with a Latin translation, and a learned preface establishing their authenticity, and notes by Nicolas Maria Antonelli in 1756; also in the collection of the Armenian Fathers, pub. at Venice in 1765, and again at Constantinople in 1824. The Latin translation is found in the Patres Apostolici of Caillau, t.25, pp.254-543. The liturgy bearing the name of James of Nisibis, said to have been formerly in use among the Syrians (Abr. Ecchell. Not. in Catal. Ebed-Jesu, p.134; Bona, Liturg. i.9) is certainly not his, but should be ascribed to James of Sarug (Renaudot, Lit. Or. t. ii. p.4). James of Nisibis is commemorated in Wright's Syrian Martyrology, and in the Roman martyrology, July 315. Assemani Bibl. Or. t. i. pp.17 sqq., 186, 557, 652; Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vii.; Ceillier, Ant. eccl. t. iv. pp.478 sqq.; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. t. ix. p.289; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p.189.

[E.V.]

Jacobus Sarugensis, bp. of Batnae
Jacobus (13) Sarugensis, bp. of Batnae, a little town in the district of Sarug in Osrhoëne. He enjoyed an extraordinary reputation for learning and holiness and was sainted alike by orthodox and heretics. The Syrian liturgies commemorate him with St. Ephraim as |os eloquentissimum et columnam ecclesiae.|

Two Lives are extant in the Vatican and one in the Brit. Mus. (Cod. dcccclx.46, dated A.D.1197). The oldest and best is the spirited eulogium by his disciple Georgius, perhaps a bishop of the Arabs. The other two, which are anonymous and later than 10th cent., are in close agreement with it. According to them, Jacobus was born at Kurtom on the Euphrates, A.D.452, and was taught in one of the schools of Edessa (according to Mares the Nestorian).

The anonymous Life (Vat.) states that Jacobus was made bp. of Batnae (|urbis Sarug|) when 67½ years old, A.D.519, and that he died 2½ years afterwards, i.e. A.D.521. Before A.D.503, Joshua Stylites tells us, Jacobus was a periodeutes or visitor of the district of Batnae, a middle rank between the episcopate and the priesthood. Cf. Ep.316 in the Brit. Mus. Cod. dclxxii. The Stylite adds that Jacobus composed many homilies on Scripture, psalms, and hymns; which proves his fame already established in 503.

Renaudot (t. ii. Liturgg. Orientt.) has charged Jacobus with Monophysitism, a charge which Assemani and Abbeloos shew to be unwarranted. Timotheus of Constantinople (fl.6th cent. ad init.) calls him |orthodox,| Isaacus Ninivita and Joannes Maro quote him as such, and Joshua the Stylite, his contemporary, calls him venerable. The Maronites, always hostile to Nestorians and Jacobites, honour him as a saint. Further, he began his episcopate under Justin, by whose orders Severus was driven from Antioch, Philoxenos from Hierapolis, and other heretics from Mesopotamia and Syria. Had Jacobus been a Monophysite, he would have shared their fate. Not a single Catholic writer of the 5th, 6th, or 7th cent., says Assemani, has so accused him. Bar-hebraeus and the Life in the Brit. Mus., indeed, allege that he communicated with Severus, and Dionysius in his Chronicon asserts that St. Jacobus of Sarug would not communicate with Paul of Antioch, because the latter confessed the two natures. But Dionysius is contradictory in his dates. Some passages of the extant hymns speak of the single nature of Christ, but may be interpolated. There is direct evidence that after the council of Chalcedon the Monophysites began to tamper with texts (cf. Evagr. iii.91). They even attributed whole works, written in their own interests, to such men as Athanasius and Gregory Thaumaturgus. Jacobus Edessenus testifies that a certain poem was falsely ascribed by the Jacobite sect to the bp. of Batnae shortly after his decease (Bar-hebr. Horr. Myst. ad Gen. vi.). A silly poem against the council of Chalcedon (Cod. Nitr.5 fol.139) is proved by internal evidence to be spurious. His writings in general supply ample proof of orthodoxy on the doctrines in question.

Works. -- He was a very voluminous writer. Bar-hebraeus says that he employed 70 amanuenses in writing his homiletic poems, of which 760 exist, besides expositions, epistles, hymns, and psalms. Georgius, in his panegyric, gives a list of his poetic writings which treat of the great men of O.T., of angels, and of the mysteries of the Son of God. The anonymous Life (Vat.) states that his homilies (mim'rê) numbered 763. Of these many may be lost; most of those which survive are unedited.

Prose Works. -- (1) An anaphora or liturgy (Renaud. Lit. Or. ii.556-566) beginning Deus Pater, qui es tranquillitas! also found in Ethiopic (Brit. Mus. Cod. cclxi. ii, |Anaphora of holy Mar Jacob the Doctor, of Batnan of Serug.| Also Codd. cclxiii. and cclxxiii.).

(2) An order of Baptism; one of four used by the Maronites (Assemani, Cod. Lit. ii.309).

(3) An order of Confirmation (ib. iii.184).

(4) A number of epistles -- the Brit. Mus. Cod. dclxxii. (dated A.D.603) contains 34 in a more or less perfect state, including (a) Ep. to Samuel, abbat of St. Isaacus at Gabûla; on the Trinity and Incarnation. |The Father unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, and receiving from the Son.| (b) Ep. to the Himyarite Christians. (c) Ep. to Stephen bar-Sudaïl of Edessa, proving from reason and Scripture the eternity of heaven and hell. (d) Ep. to Jacobus, an abbat of Edessa, explaining Heb. x.26, I. John v.16, etc. (e) Ep. to bp. Eutychianus against the Nestorians.

(5) Six Homilies: on Nativity, Epiphany, Lent, Palm Sunday, The Passion, The Resurrection (Zingerlé, Sechs Homilien des heilig. Jacob von Sarug, Bonn, 1867).

Poetic Works. -- Assemani gives a catalogue of 231, with headings and first words. Very few have been printed. The subjects are chiefly the personages and events of O. and N. T., esp. the words and deeds of Christ. Jacobus is very fond of an allegorical treatment of O.T. themes.

Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS., pp.502-525, gives an account of upwards of 40 MSS. and fragments of MSS., containing metrical discourses, and letters and a few homilies in prose, by St. Jacobus. Jacobus Edessenus classed the bp. of Batnae with St. Ephraim, Isaacus Magnus, and Xenaias Mabugensis, as a model writer of Syriac. Assem. Bibl. Or. i.283-340; Cave, ii.110; Abbeloos, de Vitâ et Scriptt. S. Jacobi Batn. Sarugi in Mesop. Episc. (Lovan.1867); Matagne, Act. Sanct. xii. Oct. p.824; Bickell, Consp. Syr.25, 26.

[C.J.B.]

Jacobus Baradaeus, bp. of Edessa
Jacobus (15) or James Baradaeus (Al Baradai, Burdoho, Burdeono, Burdeana, or Burdeaya, also Phaselita, or Zanzalus), ordained by the Monophysites bp. of Edessa (c. A.D.541), with oecumenical authority over the members of their body throughout the East. By his indomitable zeal and untiring activity this remarkable man rescued the Monophysite community from the extinction with which persecution by the imperial power threatened it, and breathed a new life into what seemed little more than an expiring faction, consecrating bishops, ordaining clergy, and uniting its scattered elements in an organization so well planned and so stable that it has subsisted unharmed through all the many political and dynastic storms in that portion of the world, and preserves to the present day the name of its founder as the Jacobite church of the East. Materials for his Life are furnished by two Syriac biographies by his contemporary, John of Asia, the Monophysite bp. of Ephesus ordained by him, printed by Land (Anecdota Syriaca, vol. ii. pp.249-253, pp.364-383), and by the third part of the Eccles. History of the same author (Payne Smith's trans. pp.273-278, 291).

The surname Baradaeus is derived from the ragged mendicant's garb patched up out of old saddle-cloths, in which, the better to disguise his spiritual functions from the unfriendly eyes of those in power, this indefatigable propagator of his creed performed his swift and secret journeys over Syria and Mesopotamia.

James Baradaeus is stated by John of Ephesus to have been born at Tela Mauzalat, otherwise called Constantina, a city of Osrhoëne, 55 miles due E. of Edessa, towards the close of 5th cent. His father, Theophilus Bar-Manu, was one of the clergy of the place. In pursuance of a vow of his parents, James, when two years old, was placed in that monastery under the care of abbat Eustathius, and trained in Greek and Syriac literature and in the strictest asceticism (Land, Anecdot. Syr. t. ii. p.364). He became remarkable for the severity of his self-discipline. Having on the death of his parents inherited their property, including a couple of slaves, he manumitted them, and made over the house and estate to them, reserving nothing for himself (ib.366). He eventually became a presbyter. His fame spread over the East and reached the empress Theodora, who was eagerly desirous of seeing him, as one of the chief saints of the Monophysite party of which she was a zealous partisan. James was with much difficulty induced to leave his monastery for the imperial city. Arriving at Constantinople, he was received with much honour by Theodora. But the splendour of the court had no attractions for him. He retired to one of the monasteries of the city, where he lived as a complete recluse. The period spent by him at Constantinople -- 15 years, according to John of Ephesus -- was a disastrous one for the Monophysite body. Justinian had resolved to enforce the Chalcedonian decrees universally, and the bishops and clergy who refused them were punished with imprisonment, deprivation, and exile. Whole districts of Syria and the adjacent countries were thus deprived of their pastors, and the Monophysites were threatened with gradual extinction. For ten years many churches had been destitute of the sacraments, which they refused to receive from what were to them heretical hands. The extreme peril of the Monophysites was represented to Theodora by the sheikh Harith, and by her instrumentality the recluse James was drawn from his cell and persuaded to accept the hazardous and laborious post of the apostle of Monophysitism in the East. A considerable number of Monophysite bishops from all parts of the East, including Theodosius of Alexandria, Anthimus the deposed patriarch of Constantinople, Constantius of Laodicea, John of Egypt, Peter, and others, who had come to Constantinople in the hope of mitigating the displeasure of the emperor and exciting the sympathies of Theodora, were held by Justinian in one of the imperial castles in a kind of honourable imprisonment. By them James was consecrated to the episcopate, nominally as bp. of Edessa but virtually as a metropolitan with oecumenical authority. The date is uncertain, but that given by Assemani (A.D.541) is probably correct. The result proved the wisdom of the choice. Of the simplest mode of life, inured to hardship from his earliest years, tolerant of the extremities of hunger and fatigue, |a second Asahel for fleetness of foot| (Abulpharagius), fired with an unquenchable zeal for what he regarded as the true faith, with a dauntless courage that despised all dangers, James, in his tattered beggar's disguise, traversed on foot the whole of Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the adjacent provinces, even to the borders of Persia, everywhere ordaining bishops and clergy, by his exhortations or his encyclical letters encouraging his depressed co-religionists to courageously maintain their faith against the advocates of the two natures, and organizing them into a compact spiritual body. By his indefatigable labours |the expiring faction was revived, and united and perpetuated. . . . The speed of the zealous missionary was promoted by the fleetest dromedaries of a devout chief of the Arabs; the doctrine and discipline of the Jacobites were secretly established in the dominions of Justinian, and each Jacobite was compelled to violate the laws and to hate the Roman legislator| (Gibbon, vol. vi. p.75, ed.1838). He is stated to have ordained the incredible number of 80,000 clergy. John of Ephesus says 100,000 (Land, Anecdot. Syr. ii.251), including 89 bishops and two patriarchs. His wonderful success in reviving the moribund Monophysite church aroused the emperor and the Catholic bishops. Orders were issued and rewards offered for his apprehension. But, in his beggar's garb, aided by the friendly Arab tribes and the people of Syria and Asia, he eluded all attempts to seize him, and lived into the reign of Tiberius. The longer of the two Lives of James, by John of Ephesus (Land, u.s. pp.364-383), must be consulted for the extent and variety of his missionary labours and for the miracles which illustrated them.

James failed miserably when he attempted to govern the vast and heterogeneous body he had created and organized. The simplicity and innocence of his character, as described by his contemporary John of Ephesus (H. E. iv.15), disqualified him for rule, and put him in the power of |crafty and designing men about him, who turned him every way they chose, and used him as a means of establishing their own powers.| His unhappy dissensions with the bishops he had ordained clouded the closing portion of James's long life. The internecine strife between the different sections of the Monophysite party is fully detailed by John of Ephesus, who records with bitter lamentation the blows, fighting, murders, and other deeds |so insensate and unrestrained that Satan and his herds of demons alone could rejoice in them, wrought on both sides by the two factions with which the believers -- so unworthy of the name -- were rent,| provoking |the contempt and ridicule of heathens, Jews, and heretics| (H. E. iv.30). For a full account see John of Ephesus, op. cit. (Payne Smith's trans. pp.48 sqq., 81 sqq., 274 sqq.).

One of these party squabbles was between James and the bps. Conon and Eugenius, whom he had ordained at Alexandria -- the former for the Isaurian Seleucia, the latter for Tarsus -- who became the founders of the obscure and short-lived sect of the |Cononites,| or, from the monastery at Constantinople to which a section of them belonged, |Condobandites| (John of Ephesus, H. E.31, v.1-12; trans. u.s. pp.49-69). Each anathematized the other, James denouncing Conon and his companion as |Tritheists,| and they retaliated by the stigma of |Sabellian.|

A still longer and more widespreading difference arose between James and Paul, whom he had ordained patriarch of Antioch (H. E. i.41, p.81). Paul and the other three leading bishops of the Monophysites had been summoned to Constantinople under colour of taking measures for restoring unity to the church, and, proving obstinate in the adherence to their own creed, were thrown into prison for a considerable time and subjected to the harshest treatment. This prolonged persecution broke their spirit, and one by one they all yielded, accepting the communion of John the patriarch of Constantinople and the |Synodites,| as the adherents of the Chalcedonian decrees were contemptuously termed by their opponents, |lapsing miserably into the communion of the two natures| (ib. i.41, ii.1-9, iv.15). Paul, stung with remorse for his cowardice, escaped into Arabia, taking refuge with Mondir, son and successor of Harith. On hearing of his defection James at once cut Paul off from communion; but at the end of three years, on receiving the assurance of his contrition, his act of penitence was laid before the synod of the Monophysite church of the East, and he was duly and canonically restored to communion by James, who notified the fact by encyclic letters (ib. iv.15). Paul's rehabilitation caused great indignation among the Monophysites at Alexandria. They clamoured for his deposition, which was carried into effect by Peter, the intruded patriarch, in violation of all canonical order; the patriarch of Antioch (Paul's position in the Monophysite communion) owning no allegiance to the patriarch of Alexandria (ib. iv.16). James allowed himself to be persuaded that if he were to visit Alexandria the veneration felt for his age and services would bring to an end the unhappy dissension between the churches of Syria and Egypt, and though he had denounced Peter, both orally and in writing, he was induced not only to hold communion with him but to draw up instruments of concord and to give his formal assent to the deposition of Paul, only stipulating that it should not be accompanied by any excommunication (ib.17). The intelligence was received with indignation and dismay in Syria on James's return. The schism which resulted between the adherents of James and Paul, A.D.576, |spread like an ulcer| through the whole of the East, especially in Constantinople. In vain did Paul entreat James to discuss the matters at issue between them calmly, promising to abide by the issue. In vain did Mondir put himself forward as a peacemaker. James shrank from investigation, and caused an obstinate refusal to be returned to all overtures of accommodation (ib.20, 21). Wearied out at last, and feeling the necessity for putting an end to the violence and bloodshed which was raging unchecked, James suddenly set out for Alexandria, but never reached it. On the arrival of his party, including several bishops, at the monastery of Cassianus or Mar-Romanus on the Egyptian frontier, a deadly sickness attacked them, and James himself fell a victim to it, July 30, 578. His episcopate is said to have lasted 37 years, and his life, according to Renaudot (Lit. Or. ii.342), 73 years.

A liturgy bearing the name of |Jacobus Bordayaeus| is given by Renaudot (Lit. Or. t. ii. pp.332-341), who confuses him, as Baronius does (ad ann.535), with Jacobus Baradaeus. That this liturgy is correctly assigned to the Jacobite church is proved by the special memorial of their founder, |memento Domine omnium pastorum et doctorum ecclesiae orthodoxae . . . praecipue vero Jacobi Bordaei,| as well as by the special condemnation of those who |impiously blasphemed the Incarnation of the Word, and divided the union in nature (unionem in natura) with the flesh taken from the holy mother of God| (ib.337, 338). The Catechesis, the chief dogmatical formulary of the Jacobites, |totius fidei Jacobiticae norma et fundamentum| (Cave, Hist Lit. i.524), though adjudged to be his by Cave, Abraham Ecchellensis, and others, together with the Encomium in Jacobitas, and an Arabic Homily on the Annunciation, are discredited by Assemani on philological and chronological grounds.

[E.V.]

Joannes Talaia, bp. of Nola
Joannes (11) I., surnamed Talaia, patriarch of Alexandria and afterwards bp. of Nola. From having been a presbyter in the monastery of the Tabennesians at Canopus near Alexandria, he was known as Tabennesiotes (Pagi, Critic. s.a.482, xix.; Mansi, vii.1178 B). Previous to the expulsion of Salofaciolus from his see of Alexandria, and after his restoration, John held the office of oeconomus under him (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. Mansi, vii.1063; Liberat. Breviar. c.16 in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxviii.1020). Shortly afterwards John was sent by the Catholics of Alexandria to the emperor Zeno, to thank him for the restoration of Salofaciolus, and to pray that when a vacancy occurred in the see they might choose his successor. He obtained an edict from the emperor complying with this request (Evagr. H. E. iii.12), and after his return became greatly distinguished as a preacher in Alexandria (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. u.s.). Salofaciolus died A.D.482 and the Catholics then elected John (ib.). The Monophysites elected Peter Mongus, then in exile (Liberat. c.17; Theophan. s.a.476). John sent the usual synodic announcement of his election to Simplicius, bp. of Rome, but neglected to direct one to ACACIUS bp. of Constantinople, only sending one to his friend Illus, who was then in that city, with instructions to make what use of it he thought fit, and accompanying it with a letter addressed to the emperor. When the magistrianus whom John employed as his messenger to Constantinople arrived there, he found that Illus had gone to Antioch, whither he followed him with the synodic. On receiving it at Antioch Illus delivered the synodic to Calandio, then recently elected to the patriarchate of that see (Liberat. cc.17, 18). Acacius, taking offence at not receiving a synodic from John, joined the Monophysites in their appeal to the emperor against him, and prevailed upon Zeno to write to Simplicius, praying him not to acknowledge John (Simplic. Ep.17, July 15, A.D.482, in Mausi, vii.951). Without waiting for the reply of Simplicius, Zeno instructed the civil authorities to expel John. Thus driven from Alexandria, Talaia went to Illus at Antioch, and thence to Rome (Liberat. c.18). There he was favourably received by Simplicius, who at once wrote to Acacius on his behalf (Ep.18, Nov.6, 482, in Mansi, vii.995). Acacius replied that he did not recognize John, but had received Mongus into communion by command of Zeno; and Simplicius rejoined, blaming Acacius in no measured terms (Liberat. c.18). Simplicius died March 2, 483, but John was warmly supported by his successor Felix III., who cited Acacius to answer certain charges brought against him by Talaia, and wrote to the emperor praying him to withdraw his countenance from Mongus and restore John (Libell. Citationis ad Acac. Mansi, vii.1108; Felic. Ep.2, A.D.483, in ib.1032). On the return of his legates from Constantinople, Felix held a synod at Rome which excommunicated Acacius for his persistent support of Mongus (Ep.6, July 28, 484, in ib.1053). Felix wrote to inform Zeno of this, and to let him know that |the apostolic see would never consent to communion with Peter of Alexandria, who had been justly condemned long since| (Ep.9, Aug.1, 484, in ib.1065). Felix did not obtain his end, and John seems to have remained at Rome until the death of Zeno and the succession of Anastasius, A.D.491, to whom John had shewn kindness at Alexandria after his shipwreck. Presuming that Anastasius would not be unmindful of this, John went to Constantinople to appeal to him. On hearing of his arrival Anastasius at once ordered him to be exiled, and John made his escape and returned to Rome (Theophan. s.a.484, p.118; Victor Tunun. s.a.494, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxviii.948). Felix died Feb.25, 492, but his successor, Gelasius I., equally interested himself in John (Gelas. Epp.13, 15, in Mansi, viii.49 seq., c.493-495).

All these efforts to procure his reinstatement were of no avail; John never returned to Alexandria, but received, as some compensation, the see of Nola in Campania, where, after many years, he died in peace (Liberat. c.18). During his episcopate there he apparently wrote an apologia to Gelasius, in which he anathematized the Pelagian heresy, Pelagius himself, and Celestius, as well as Julianus of Eclana. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. liv.; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii.417, 419; Remondini, Del Nolana Eccl. Storia, iii.56-59; Ughelli, Ital. Sacr. vi.251; Tillem. Mém. xvi.313 seq.; Hefele, Concil. ii.604 seq.

[T.W.D.]

Joannes, bishop of Antioch
Joannes (31), bp. of Antioch (429-448). Our knowledge of him commences with his election as successor to Theodotus in the see of Antioch. In 429 the bishops of the East, according to the aged Acacius of Beroea, congratulated themselves on having such a leader (Labbe, iii.386); but the troubles which rendered his episcopate so unhappily famous began immediately to shew themselves. His old companion and fellow-townsman Nestorius had just been appointed to the see of Constantinople, and had inaugurated his episcopate with a sermon in the metropolitan church repudiating the term |Mother of God,| theotokos. Celestine, the Roman pontiff, summoned a synod of Western bishops in Aug.430, which unanimously condemned the tenets of Nestorius, and the name of John of Antioch appears in the controversy. The support of the Eastern prelates, of whom the patriarch of Antioch was chief, being of great importance, Celestine wrote to John, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi, informing them of the decree passed against Nestorius (Baluz. p.438, c. xv.; Labbe, iii.376). At the same time Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, wrote to John calling upon him, on pain of being separated from the communion of the West, to accept Celestine's decision and unite with him in defending the faith against Nestorius (Baluz. p.442, c. xviii.; Labbe, iii.379). Such a declaration of open hostility against an old friend, of whose virtual orthodoxy he was convinced, was very distasteful to John. He dispatched a letter full of Christian persuasiveness, by the count Irenaeus, to Nestorius, in his own name, and that of his brother-bishops Archelaus, Apringius, Theodoret, Heliades, Melchius, and the newly appointed bp. of Laodicea, Macarius, entreating him not to plunge the church into discord on account of a word to which the Christian ear had become accustomed, and which was capable of being interpreted in his own sense. He enlarged on the danger of schism, warning Nestorius that the East, Egypt, and Macedonia were about to separate from him, and exhorted him to follow the example of Theodorus of Mopsuestia in retracting words which had given pain to the orthodox, since he really held the orthodox faith on these points (Baluz. p.445, c. xxi.; Labbe, iii.390 seq.). John wrote also to count Irenaeus, Musaeus bp. of Antarada, and Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who were then at Constantinople, hoping to avail himself of their influence with Nestorius (Baluz. p.688). Nestorius's reply indicated no intention of following John's counsels. He declared himself orthodox in the truest sense. He had no rooted objection to the term theotokos, but thought it unsafe, because accepted by some in an Arian or Apollinarian sense. He preferred Christotokos, as a middle term between it and anthropotokos. He proposed to defer the discussion to the general council which he hoped for (ib. p.688).

The divergence of the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools of thought in their way of regarding the mystery of the Incarnation lay at the root of this controversy about the term, and it was brought into open manifestation by the publication of Cyril's twelve |anathematisms| on the teaching of Nestorius. Nestorius, on receiving these fulminations at the end of 430, at once sent copies of them to John, together with his two sermons of Dec.13 and 14, in which he professed to have acknowledged Mary as the |Mother of God| (ib. p.691, c. iv.). John declared himself horror-stricken at the Apollinarian heresy which characterized Cyril's articles. He made them known far and wide, in Cappadocia, Galatia, and through the East generally, accompanying them with earnest appeals to the bishops and the orthodox everywhere to openly repudiate the grave errors they contained (ib. p.838, No. xxxvi. Ep. Alexandri Episc.). His letter to Firmus is preserved (Baluz. p.691, c. iv.), in which he expresses abhorrence of the |capitula,| which he considers so unlike Cyril both in style and doctrine that he cannot believe they are his, and calls upon Firmus, if they reach Pontus, to get them abjured by the bishops of the province, without naming the supposed author. He rejoices over Nestorius's public acceptance of the test-word, in the two sermons he has sent him, which has quieted the storm and restored tranquillity to the church of Constantinople. John was also careful to have Cyril's heretical formularies refuted by able theologians. [[316]ANDREAS SAMOSATENSIS; THEODORET.]

The breach between the two patriarchs was complete. Each denounced the other as heretical. A larger arena was supplied by the general council summoned by Theodosius to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost, 431. John's arrival having been delayed more than a fortnight beyond the time fixed for the opening of the council, he wrote that Antioch was 42 days' journey from Ephesus, at the fastest. He had been travelling without interruption for 30 days; he was now within five or six stages of Ephesus. If Cyril would condescend to wait a little longer, he hoped in a very few days to arrive (ib. p.451, c. xxiii.). Cyril would not delay. On Mon. June 22, 431, 198 bishops met in the church of St. Mary the Virgin, and in one day Nestorius was tried, condemned, sentenced, deposed, and excommunicated. Five days later, Sat. June 27, John arrived with 14 bishops. His reasons for delay were quite sufficient. His patriarchate was a very extensive one. His attendant bishops could not leave their churches before the octave of Easter, Apr.26. The distances some of them had to travel did not allow them to reach Antioch before May 10. John's departure had been delayed by a famine at Antioch and consequent outbreaks of the populace; their progress was impeded by floods (Labbe, iii.602); the transport broke down; many of the bishops were aged men, unfit for rapid travelling. There was nothing to support Cyril's accusation that John's delay was intentional.

Cyril sent a deputation of bishops, and ecclesiastics to welcome John, apprise him in the name of the council of the deposition of Nestorius and that he must no longer regard him as a bishop (ib. iii.761). John, who had already heard from count Irenaeus of the hasty decision of the council, refused to admit the deputation, and they complained that they were rudely treated by the guard whom Irenaeus had sent to do honour to and protect the Eastern bishops. The deputation were compelled to wait for some hours at the door of the house where John took up his quarters, exposed to the insults of the soldiers and the attendants of the Orientals (ib.593, 764) while a rival council was being held within. The bishops who sided with John had hastened to his lodgings, where, |before they had shaken the dust off their feet, or taken off their cloaks| (Cyril. Ep. ad Colest. Labbe, iii.663), the small synod -- the |conciliabulum| their enemies tauntingly called it -- of 43 bishops, passed a sentence of deposition on Cyril and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, and of excommunication on all the other prelates of the council, until they should have condemned Cyril's |capitula,| which they declared tainted not only with Apollinarian, but with Arian and Eunomian heresy (ib.596, 637, 657, 664 passim). The sentences of excommunication and deposition were posted up in the city. There John vouchsafed an audience to the deputies of the other council. They communicated its decrees as to Nestorius, but received, they asserted, no reply but insults and blows (ib.764). Returning to Cyril they formally complained of John's treatment, of which they shewed marks on their persons. The council immediately declared John separated from their communion until he explained this conduct.

John's attempts to reduce Cyril and his adherents to submission by his own authority proved fruitless, and he had recourse to the emperor and the ecclesiastical power at Constantinople. Several letters were written to Theodosius, to the empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia, the clergy, the senate, and the people of that city (Labbe, iii.601-609; Liberat. c. vi.) to explain the tardiness of John's arrival and to justify the sentence pronounced on Cyril, Memnon, and the other bishops. Theodosius wrote to the council, declaring their decisions null (Labbe, iii.704). The letter reached Ephesus June 29. John and his friends welcomed it with benedictions, assuring the emperor that they had acted from pure zeal for the faith which was imperilled by the Apollinarianism of Cyril's |anathematisms.| Relying on imperial favour, John strove in vain to persuade the Ephesians to demand a new bishop in the place of Memnon. Meantime, the legates of Celestine had arrived from Rome, and the council, strengthened by their presence and the approbation of the bp. of Rome, proceeded, July 16, to summon John before them. Their deputation was informed that John could hold no intercourse with excommunicated persons (ib.640). On this the council declared null all the acts of John's |conciliabulum,| and, on his persisting, separated him and the bishops who had joined him from the communion of the church, pronounced them disqualified for all episcopal functions, and published their decree openly (ib.302).

Two counter-deputations from the opposite parties presented themselves to Theodosius in the first week of September at Chalcedon. John himself did not shrink from an open defence of the orthodoxy of Nestorius, declaring his deposition illegal and exposing the heresy of Cyril's anathematisms (Baluz. pp.837, 839). To support their evidently failing cause, John and his fellow-deputies wrote to some leading prelates of the West, the bps. of Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna, and Rufus of Thessalonica, laying before them in earnest terms the heretical character of Cyril's doctrines (Theod. Ep.112; Labbe, iii.736), but apparently without favourable result. The victory was substantially with the Cyrillian party. After six audiences the emperor, weary of the fruitless strife, declared his final resolve. Nestorius, generally abandoned by his supporters, was permitted to retire to his former monastery of St. Euprepius at Antioch. Maximian, a presbyter of Constantinople, in defiance of the protest of John and his party, was consecrated (Oct.25) bp. of the imperial see in his room. Memnon and Cyril were reinstated: the former to remain at Ephesus as bishop; Cyril and the other bishops to return home. John and the Orientals were only not formally condemned because the dogmatic question had not been discussed. Before he retired vanquished, John delivered a final remonstrance. The churches of Chalcedon were closed against the Oriental bishops, but they had obtained a spacious hall for public worship and preaching. Large crowds assembled to listen to the powerful sermons of Theodoret and the milder exhortations of John. The mortification with which John left Chalcedon was deepened by the events of his homeward journey. At Ancyra he found that letters from its bp. Theodotus, who was one of the eight deputies of the council, as well as from Firmus of Caesarea, and Maximian the newly appointed bp. of
Constantinople, had commanded that he and his companions should be regarded as excommunicate.

From Ancyra John proceeded to Tarsus. Here, in his own patriarchate, he immediately held a council, together with Alexander of Hierapolis and the other deputies, at which he confirmed the deposition of Cyril and his brother-commissioners (Baluz, 840, 843, 847) Theodoret and the others engaged never to consent to the deposition of Nestorius. On reaching Antioch, about the middle of Dec., John summoned a very numerously attended council of bishops, which pronounced a fresh sentence against Cyril and wrote to Theodosius, calling upon him to take measures for the general condemnation of the doctrines of Cyril, as contrary to the Nicene faith which they were resolved to maintain to the death (Socr. H. E. vii.34; Liberat. c. vi.; Baluz. p.741, c. xxxix.). Soon after his return to Antioch John, accompanied by six bishops, visited the venerable Acacius of Beroea, whose sympathy in the controversy had greatly strengthened and consoled him. The old man was deeply grieved to hear the untoward result of their proceedings.

The battle was now over and the victory remained with Cyril. His return to Alexandria was a triumphal progress (Labbe, iii.105). But the victory had been purchased by a schism in the church. Alexandria and Antioch were two hostile camps. For three years a bitter strife was maintained. The issue, however, was never doubtful. John, alarmed for his own safety, soon began to show symptoms of yielding. The emperor, at the urgent demand of Celestine, had pronounced the banishment of Nestorius. John might not unreasonably fear a demand for his own deposition. It was time he should make it clear that he had no real sympathy with the errors of the heresiarch. The pertinacity with which Nestorius continued to promulgate the tenets which had proved so ruinous to the peace of the church irritated John. The newly elected bp. of Rome, Sixtus, who had warmly embraced Cyril's cause, in a letter addressed to the prelates of the East in the interests of reunion, A.D.432, declared that John might be received again into the Catholic church, provided he repudiated all whom the council of Ephesus had deposed and proved by his acts that he really deserved the name of a Catholic bishop (Coteler. Mon. Eccl. Graec. i.47). Cyril was disposed to limit his requirements to the condemnation of Nestorius and the recognition of Maximian. John summoned Alexander of Hierapolis, Andrew of Samosata, Theodoret, and probably others, to Antioch and held a conference to draw up terms of peace. It was agreed that if Cyril would reject his anathematisms they would restore him to communion. Propositions for union were dispatched by John to Cyril. John and his fellow-bishops next sought the intervention of Acacius of Beroea, who was universally venerated, in the hope that his influence might render Cyril more willing to accept the terms (Baluz.756, c. liii.; Labbe, iii.1114). Cyril, though naturally declining to retract his condemnation of Nestorius's tenets, opened the way for a reconciliation with John. John, eager to come to terms with his formidable foe, declared himself fully satisfied of Cyril's orthodoxy; his explanation had removed all the doubt his former language had raised (Labbe, iii.757, 782). Paul, bp. of Emesa, was dispatched by John to Alexandria to confer with Cyril and bring about the much-desired restoration of communion (ib.783). These events took place in Dec.432 and Jan.433. Cyril after some hesitation signed a confession of faith sent him by John, declaring in express terms |the union of the two natures without confusion in the One Christ, One Son, One Lord,| and confessing |the Holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because God the Word was incarnate and made man, and from His very conception united to Himself the temple taken from her| (Labbe, iii.1094; Baluz. pp.800, 804; Liberat.8, p.30), and gave Paul of Emesa an explanation of his anathematisms which Paul approved (Labbe, iii.1090). Cyril then required acceptance of the deposition of Nestorius, recognition of Maximian, and acquiescence in the sentence passed by him on the four metropolitans deposed as Nestorians; terms acceded to by Paul. Each party was desirous of peace and disposed to concessions. Paul, placing in Cyril's hand a written consent to all his requirements, was admitted to communion and allowed to preach at the Feast of the Nativity (Cyril. Ep.32, 40; Labbe, iii.1095; Liberat. c.8, p.32). John, however, sent letters stating that neither he nor the other Oriental bishops could consent so hastily to the condemnation of Nestorius, from whose writings he gave extracts to prove their orthodoxy (Baluz. p.908). Cyril and the court began. to weary of so much indecision, and, to bring matters to a point, a document drawn up by Cyril and Paul was sent for John to sign (Cyril, Epp.40, 42), together with letters of communion to be given him if he consented. Fresh delays ensued, but at last, in Apr.433, the act giving peace to the Christian world was signed and dispatched to Alexandria, where it was announced by Cyril in the cathedral on Apr.23. John, in a letter to Cyril, stated that in signing this document he had no intention to derogate from the authority of the Nicene Creed, and expressly recognized Maximian as the lawful bp. of
Constantinople in place of Nestorius, sometime bishop, but deposed for teaching which merited anathema. He also wrote a circular letter of communion addressed to pope Sixtus, Cyril and Maximian (Labbe, iii.1087, 1090, 1094, 1154; Cyril, Ep.41). The East and West were once more at one. Cyril testified his joy in the celebrated letter to John, commencing |Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad| (Labbe, iii.1106-1111). John wrote to Theodosius thanking him for the peace which his efforts had procured, and begged him to render it universal by restoring the deposed bishops.

This accommodation was far from being satisfactory to the extreme members of either party. Isidore of Pelusium and other adherents of Cyril expressed a fear that he had made too large concessions; while John had given great offence to many of his warmest supporters, who accused him of truckling to powerful advocates of a hollow peace to secure his position as bishop. Theodoret refused to abandon Nestorius. Alexander of Hierapolis broke off communion with his patriarch John (Baluz. pp.799, 832). During the next two years John sought to force the bishops of his patriarchate to accept the terms of peace. Theodoret's unwillingness to abandon Nestorius and rooted dislike to Cyril's articles raised a coldness between him and John which was much strengthened by an unwarrantable usurpation on John's part, who at the close of 433 or beginning of 434 had ordained bishops for Euphratesia. This aggression caused serious irritation among the bishops of the province, who, led by Theodoret, withdrew from communion with John. John unhappily continuing his acts of usurpation, the disaffection spread. Nine provinces subject to the patriarch of Antioch renounced communion with John, who had at length to request the imperial power to force them into union by ejecting the bishops who refused the agreement he had arranged with Cyril. Theodoret, yielding to the entreaties of James of Cyrus and other solitaries of his diocese, consented to a conference with John and was received by his old friend with great cordiality. All reproaches were silenced, and as John did not insist on his accepting sentence against Nestorius, he embraced concordat, and returned to communion with John and Cyril (ib. pp.834-836). The way towards peace had been smoothed by the death of Nestorius's successor, Maximian, Apr.12, 434, and the appointment as archbp. of Constantinople of the saintly Proclus, who, in the early part of the Nestorian controversy, had preached the great sermon on the Theotokos (Socr. H. E. vii.40; Baluz. p.851). Proclus's influence was exerted in favour of peace, and so successfully that all the remonstrant bishops, except Alexander of Hierapolis and five others, ultimately accepted the concordat and retained their sees. Alexander was ejected in Apr.435. John made a strong representation to Proclus in 436 that Nestorius in his retirement was persisting in his blasphemies and perverting many in Antioch and throughout the East (Baluz. p.894), and formally requested Theodosius to expel him from the East and deprive him of the power of doing mischief (Evagr. H. E. i.7; Theophan. p.78). An edict was accordingly issued that all the heresiarch's books should be burnt, his followers called |Simonians| and their meetings suppressed (Labbe, iii.1209; Cod. Theod. XVI. v.66). The property of Nestorius was confiscated and he was banished to the remote and terrible Egyptian oasis.

Nestorian doctrines were too deeply rooted in the Eastern mind to be eradicated by persecution. Cyril, suspecting that the union was more apparent than real and that some of the bishops who had verbally condemned Nestorius still in their hearts cherished his teaching, procured orders from the Imperial government that the bishops should severally and explicitly repudiate Nestorianism. A formula of Cyril's having been put into John's hands for signature, John wrote in 436 or 437 to Proclus to remonstrate against this multiplicity of tests which distracted the attention of bishops from the care of their dioceses (Labbe, iii.894).

Fresh troubles speedily broke out in the East in connexion with the writings of the greatly revered Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, whose disciple Nestorius had been. The bishops and clergy of Armenia appealed to Proclus for his judgment on the teaching of Theodore (ib. v.463). Proclus replied by the celebrated doctrinal epistle known as the |Tome of St. Proclus.| To this were attached some passages selected from Theodore's writings, which he deemed deserving of condemnation (ib.511-513). This letter he sent first to John requesting that he and his council would sign it (Liberat. p.46; Facundus, lib.8, c.1, 2), John assembled his provincial bishops at Antioch. They expressed annoyance at being called on for fresh signatures, as if their orthodoxy was still questionable, but made no difficulty about signing the |Tome,| which they found worthy of all admiration, both for beauty of style and the dogmatic precision of its definitions. But the demand for the condemnation of the appended extracts called forth indignant protests. They refused to condemn passages divorced from their context, and capable, even as they stood, of an orthodox interpretation. A fresh schism threatened, but the letters of remonstrance written by John and his council to Proclus and Theodosius put a stop to the whole matter. Even Cyril, who had striven hard to procure the condemnation of Theodore, was compelled to desist by the resolute front shewn by the Orientals, some of whom, John told him, were ready to be burnt rather than condemn the teaching of one they so deeply revered (Cyril. Epp.54, 199) Theodosius wrote to the Oriental bishops that the church must not be disturbed by fresh controversy and that no one should presume to decide anything unfavourable to those who had died in the peace of the church (Baluz. p.928, c. ccxix.). The date of this transaction was probably 438. It is the last recorded event in John's career. His death occurred in 441 or 442. Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xiv. xv.; Ceillier, Auteurs eccl.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.412; Neander, Church. Hist. vol. iv., Clarke's ed.; Milman, Latin Christ. vol. i. pp.141-177; Bright, Hist. of Church, pp.310-365.

[E.V.]

Joannes Silentiarius, bp. of Colonia
Joannes (113), surnamed Silentiarius, bp. of Colonia and afterwards one of the most celebrated of the monks. His Life was written by Cyril of Scythopolis. He was born in 454, at Nicopolis in Armenia. His father and mother, noble and wealthy Christians, gave him a Christian education. John consecrated himself to God when 18 years old, built a church at Nicopolis in honour of the Virgin Mary, and taking ten brethren set up a monastery. In his 28th year (c.481) the bp. of Sebastia, metropolitan of the district, at the request of the people of Colonia, consecrated him bishop of that see against his will. He continued his monastic life, specially avoiding the baths. |He thought it the greatest of all virtues never to be washed|; |determined never to be seen, even by his own eyes, without his clothes.| His character had the happiest effect on his own family.

When he had been bp. ten years he went to Constantinople with an appeal to the emperor. Here he embarked on a ship unknown to his friends, made his way to Jerusalem, and dwelt there in a hospital for old men, wherein was an oratory of George the Martyr, but was supernaturally guided to the community of St. Sabas, who presided over 150 anchorets and received John, and appointed him to some petty office. A guest-house was being built; the former bp. of Colonia, the noble of the Byzantine court, fetched water from a torrent, cooked for the builders, brought stones and other materials for the work. Next year the steward appointed John to the humble duty of presiding over the kitchen. At the end of three years he was appointed steward. Sabas, ignorant of his ecclesiastical rank, considering it high time for John to be ordained, took him to Jerusalem, and introduced him to archbp. Elias. John was obliged to confess that he was a bishop. Archbp. Elias wondered at his story, summoned Sabas, and excused John from ordination, promising that from that day he should be silent and nobody should molest him. He never left his cell for four years afterwards, and was seen by none but the brothers who served him, except at the dedication of a church in the community, when he was obliged to pay his respects to archbp. Elias. The patriarch was captivated with his conversation and held him in lifelong honour. In 503 John went into the desert of Ruba. Here he remained silent about seven years, only leaving his cave every third or fourth day to collect wild apples, the usual food of the solitaries.

Sabas eventually persuaded John to return to his old community when 56 years old, A.D.510. Here he continued to live a life that seemed to the people of those days absolutely angelical and many stories are told of his miraculous endowments. He must have died c.558. Cyril. Mon. ap. AA. SS. Bolland.13 Mai. iii.232; Baron. Annal. ad ann.457, lviii. etc.; Ceillier, xi.277.

[W.M.S.]

Joannes Cappadox, bp. of Constantinople
Joannes (124) II., surnamed Cappadox, 27th bp. of
Constantinople, 517-520, appointed by Anastasius after an enforced condemnation of Chalcedon. His short patriarchate is memorable for the celebrated Acclamations of Constantinople, and the reunion of East and West after a schism of 34 years. At the death of Timothy, John of Cappadocia, whom he had designated his successor, was presbyter and chancellor of the church of Constantinople.

On July 9, 518, the long reign of Anastasius came to a close, the orthodox Justin succeeding. On Sunday, July 15, the new emperor entered the cathedral, and the archbishop, accompanied by twelve prelates, was making his way through the throngs that crowded every corner. As he came near the raised dais where the pulpit stood shouts arose, |Long live the patriarch! Long live the emperor! Why do we remain excommunicated? Why have we not communicated these many years? You are Catholic, what do you fear; worthy servant of the Trinity? Cast out Severus the Manichee! O Justin, our emperor, you win! This instant proclaim the synod of Chalcedon, because Justin reigns.| These and other cries continued. The procession passed into the inclosure, but the excited congregation went on shouting outside the gates of the choir in similar strains: |You shall not come out unless you anathematize Severus,| referring to the heretical patriarch of Antioch. The patriarch John, having meanwhile gained time for thought and consultation, came out and mounted the pulpit, saying, |There is no need of disturbance or tumult; nothing has been done against the faith; we recognize for orthodox all the councils which have confirmed the decrees of Nicaea, and principally these three -- Constantinople, Ephesus, and the great council of Chalcedon.|

The people were determined to have a more formal decision, and continued shouting for several hours, mingling with their former cries such as these: |Fix a day for a festival in honour of Chalcedon!| |Commemorate the holy synod this very morrow!| The people being thus firm, the deacon Samuel was instructed to announce the desired festival. Still the people continued to shout with all their might, |Severus is now to be anathematized; anathematize him this instant, or there's nothing done!| The patriarch, seeing that something must be settled, took counsel with the twelve attendant prelates, who agreed to the curse on Severus. This extemporaneous and intimidated council then carried a decree by acclamation: |It is plain to all that Severus in separating himself from this church condemned himself. Following, therefore, the canons and the Fathers, we hold him alien and condemned by reason of his blasphemies, and we anathematize him.| The domes of St. Sophia rang with shouts of triumph and the crowd dispersed. It was a day long remembered in Constantinople.

The next day the promised commemoration of Chalcedon took place. Again as the patriarch made his processional entrance and approached the pulpit clamours arose: |Restore the relics of Macedonius to the church! Restore those exiled for the faith! Let the bones of the Nestorians be dug up! Let the bones of the Eutychians be dug up! Cast out the Manichees! Place the four councils in the diptychs! Place Leo, bp. of Rome, in the diptychs! Bring the diptychs to the pulpit!| This kind of cry continuing, the patriarch replied, |Yesterday we did what was enough to satisfy my dear people, and we shall do the same to-day. We must take the faith as our inviolable foundation; it will aid us to reunite the churches. Let us then glorify with one mouth the holy and consubstantial Trinity.| But the people went on crying madly, |This instant, let none go out! I abjure you, shut the doors! You no longer fear Amantius the Manichee! Justin reigns, why fear Amantius?| So they continued. The patriarch tried in vain to bring them to reason. It was the outburst of enthusiasm and excitement long pent up under heterodox repression. It bore all before it. The patriarch was at last obliged to have inserted in the diptychs the four councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the names of Euphemius and Macedonius, patriarchs of Constantinople, and Leo, bp. of Rome. Then the multitude chanted for more than an hour, |Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He hath visited and redeemed His people!| The choir assembled on the raised platform, and, turning eastwards, sang the Trisagion, the whole people listening in silence. When the moment arrived for the recitation of the names of the defunct bishops from the diptychs, the multitude closed in silence about the holy table; and when the deacon had read the new insertions, a mighty shout arose, |Glory be to Thee, O Lord!|

To authenticate what had been done, John assembled on July 20 a council of 40 bishops, who happened to be at the capital. The four general councils and the name of Leo, bp. of Rome, were inscribed in the diptychs. Severus of Antioch was anathematized after an examination of his works in which a distinct condemnation of Chalcedon was discovered. John wrote to John of Jerusalem and to Epiphanius of Tyre, telling them the good news of the acclamations and the synod. His letters were accompanied by orders from Justin to restore all who had been banished by Anastasius, and to inscribe the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs. At Jerusalem and at Tyre there was great joy. Many other churches declared for Chalcedon, and during the reign of Justin 2,500 bishops gave their adhesion and approval. Now came the reconciliation with Rome. The emperor Justin wrote to the pope a fortnight after the scene of the acclamations, begging him to further the desires of the patriarch John for the reunion of the churches. John wrote saying that he received the four general councils, and that the names of Leo and of Hormisdas himself had been put in the diptychs. A deputation was sent to Constantinople with instructions that Acacius was to be anathematized by name, but that Euphemius and Macedonius might be passed over in silence.

The deputies arrived at Constantinople on Mar.25, 519. Justin received the pope's letters with great respect, and told the ambassadors to come to an explanation with the patriarch, who at first wished to express his adherence in the form of a letter, but agreed to write a little preface and place after it the words of Hormisdas, which he copied out in his own handwriting. Two copies were sent by the legates to Rome, one in Greek, the other in Latin. Emperor, senate, and all present were overjoyed at this ratification of peace.

The sting of the transaction still remained; they had now to efface from the diptychs the names of five patriarchs and two emperors -- Acacius, Fravitta, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus; Zeno and Anastasius. All the bishops at
Constantinople gave their consent in writing; so did all the abbats, after some had raised a difficulty. On Easter Day the pacification was promulgated. The court and people, equally enthusiastic, surged into St. Sophia. The vaults resounded with acclamations in praise of God, the emperor, St. Peter, and the bp. of Rome. Opponents, who had prophesied sedition and tumult, were signally disappointed. Never within memory had so vast a number communicated. The emperor sent an account of the proceedings throughout the provinces and the ambassadors forwarded their report to Rome, saying that there only remained the negotiations with Antioch. John wrote to Hormisdas to congratulate him on the great work, and to offer him the credit of its success. Soon after, Jan.19, 520, John died.

Baronius, ad. ann.518, x.-lxxvii.520, vii.; Fleury, ii.573; Acta SS. Bolland.18 Aug. iii.655; Theoph. Chronogr. § 140, Patr. Gk. cviii.; Niceph. Callist. iiii.456, Patr. Gk. cxlvii.; Photius, iii. § 287 a, Patr. Gk. ciii.; Avitus, Ep. vii. Patr. Lat. lix.227; Hormisdas, Epp., Patr. Lat. lxiii. p.426, etc.

[W.M.S.]

Joannes Scholasticus, bp. of Constantinople
Joannes (125) III., surnamed Scholasticus, |The Lawyer,| 32nd bp. of Constantinople (Apr.12, 565-Aug.31, 577), born at Sirimis, in the region of Cynegia, near Antioch. There was a flourishing college of lawyers at Antioch, where he entered and did himself credit. This was suppressed in 533 by Justinian. John was ordained and became agent and secretary of his church. This would bring him into touch with the court at
Constantinople. When Justinian, towards the close of his life, tried to raise the sect of the Aphthartodocetae to the rank of orthodoxy, and determined to expel the blameless Eutychius for his opposition, the able lawyer-ecclesiastic of Antioch, who had already distinguished himself by his great edition of the canons, was chosen to carry out the imperial will.

Little is known of his episcopal career. Seven months after his appointment Justinian died. The new emperor, Justin II., was crowned by the patriarch, Nov.14, 565. John himself died shortly before Justin.

One of the most useful works of that period was the Digest of Canon Law formed by John at Antioch. Following some older work which he mentions in his preface, he abandoned the historical plan of giving the decrees of each council in order and arranged them on a philosophical principle, according to their matter. The older writers had sixty heads. He reduced them to fifty. To the canons of the councils of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Ephesus, and Constantinople, already collected and received in the Greek church, John added 89 |Apostolical Canons,| the 21 of Sardica, and the 68 of the canonical letter of Basil. Writing to Photius, pope Nicholas I. cites a harmony of the canons which includes those of Sardica, which could only be that of John the Lawyer. When John came to Constantinople, he edited the Nomocanon, an abridgment of his former work, with the addition of a comparison of the imperial rescripts and civil laws (especially the Novels of Justinian) under each head. Balsamon cites this without naming the author, in his notes on the first canon of the Trullan council of Constantinople. In a MS. of the Paris library the Nomocanon is attributed to Theodoret, but in all others to John. Theodoret would not have inserted the |apostolical canons| and those of Sardica, and the style has no resemblance to his. In 1661 these two works were printed at the beginning of vol. ii. of the Bibliotheca Canonica of Justellus, at Paris. Photius (Cod. lxxv.) mentions his catechism, in which he established the Catholic teaching of the consubstantial Trinity, saying that he wrote it in 568, under Justin II., and that it was afterwards attacked by the impious Philoponus. Fabricius considers that the Digest or Harmony and the Nomocanon are probably rightly assigned to John the Lawyer. Fabricius, xi.101, xii.146, 193, 201, 209; Evagr. H. E. iv.38, v.13, Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. pt.2; Theoph. Chronogr.204, etc., Patr. Gk. cviii.; Niceph. Callist. iii.455, Patr. Gk. cxlvii.; Victor Tunun. Patr. Lat. lxviii.937; Baronius, ad. ann.564, xiv. xxix.; 565, xvii.; 578, 5; Patr. Constant. in Acta SS. Bolland. Aug. i. p. * 67.

[W.M.S.]

Joannes, the Faster, bp. of Constantinople
Joannes (126) IV. (surnamed The Faster, Jejunator, sometimes also Cappadox, and thus liable to be confused with the patriarch John II.), 33rd bp. of Constantinople, from Apr.11, 582 to Sept.2, 595. He was born at Constantinople of artisan parents, and was a sculptor. In 587 or 588 he summoned the bishops of the East in the name of |the Oecumenical Patriarch| to decide the cause of Gregory, archbp. of Antioch, who was acquitted and returned to his see. Pelagius II., bp. of Rome, solemnly annulled the acts of this council. In 593 we find John severely blamed by pope Gregory for having allowed an Isaurian presbyter named Anastasius, accused of heresy, to be beaten with ropes in the church of Constantinople.

In 595 the controversy was again rife about the title of universal bishop. Gregory the Great wrote to his legate Sabinianus forbidding him to communicate with John. In the case of a presbyter named Athanasius, accused of being to some extent a Manichee, and condemned as such, Gregory shews that the accuser was himself a Pelagian, and that by the carelessness, ignorance, or fault of John the Faster the Nestorian council of Ephesus had actually been mistaken for the Catholic, so that heretics would be taken for orthodox, and orthodox condemned as heretics!

His Writings. -- Isidore of Seville (de Script. Eccl.26) attributes to him only a letter, not now extant, on baptism addressed to St. Leander. John, he says, |propounds nothing of his own, but only repeats the opinions of the ancient Fathers on trine immersion.|

But there are extant four works attributed to John the Faster. (1) His Penitential, Libellus Poenitentialis, or, as it is described in bk. iii. of the work of Leo Allatius, de Consensu Utriusque Ecclesiae (Rome, 1655, 4to), Praxis Graecis Praescripta in Confessione Peragenda. The Greeks of the middle ages always attributed this and (2) to John the Faster.

(2) Instructio, qua non modo confitens de confessione pie et integre edenda instituitur, sed etiam sacerdos, qua ratione confessiones excipiat, poenitentiam imponat et reconciliationem praestet informatur.

(3) Homily on Penitence, Continence, and Virginity. Often printed among Chrysostom's homilies, but now agreed not to be Chrysostom's. Montfaucon, Vossius, and Pearson held it to be by John the Faster; Morel and Savile printed it among Chrysostom's works.

(4) Homily on False Prophets and False Doctrine. Attributed occasionally to Chrysostom, by Peter Wastel to John of Jerusalem, but by Vossius, Petavius, and Cave to John the Faster.

(5) A set of Precepts to a Monk, in a MS. at the Paris library.

Migne reproduces the Penitential, the Instructions for Confession, and the Homily on Penitence in Patr. Gk. lxxxviii.1089. See also Baronius, ad. ann.588-593; AA. SS. Bolland. Aug.1, p.69; Fleury, ii. bk. xxxiv. c.44, etc.; Ceillier, xi.427, etc.; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. xi.108, xii.239.

[W.M.S.]

Joannes, bishop of Ephesus
Joannes (160) (called of Asia and of Ephesus), Monophysite bp. of Ephesus, born c.516, and living in 585, a Syriac writer whose chief work was his History of the Church, in the extant portion of which he describes himself once as |John, who is called superintendent of the heathen and Breaker of Idols| (ii.4), and twice as |John who is over the heathen, who was bp. of Ephesus| (ii.41; iii.15). Elsewhere he styles himself, |John bp. of Ephesus| (iv.45), or simply, |John of Ephesus| (v.1); and, lastly, |John of Asia, that is, John of Ephesus| (v.7). Hence John of Ephesus is clearly the historian so often mentioned by Syriac writers as John bp. of Asia, |Asia| meaning the district of which Ephesus was the capital.

Dr. Land (Johann von Ephesus der erste syrische
Kirchenhistoriker) discusses his identification with one or other of his numerous namesakes who wrote during the same period; and has pronounced in the negative.

What we know of the personal history of John of Ephesus is gathered from the meagre extracts from pt. ii. of his great work, preserved in the Chronicon of Dionysius; and from the extant pt. iii., which is to some extent an autobiography. Dionysius (ap. Assemani, Bibl. Or.83-90) tells us that John's birthplace was Amid in N. Mesopotamia. He stood high in the confidence of the emperor Justinian, by whom he was commissioned in 542 as |Teacher of the heathen| in the four provinces of Asia, Caria, Phrygia, and Lydia. His success was such that in four years 70,000 persons adopted Christianity. In the third part of his history (ii.44) John mentions that Deuterius was 35 years his fellow-labourer, and his successor in Caria. Together they had built 99 churches and 12 monasteries. John tells (iii.36-37) how the work began among the mountains round Tralles. His chief monastery, Darira, rose upon the site of a famous temple which he had demolished.

In 546 he was entrusted with an inquiry into the secret practice of pagan rites by professing Christians. Members of all ranks were inculpated: Phocas, prefect of the capital, being informed against, poisoned himself. John was appointed to instruct the accused in Christian doctrine; and an imperial edict prescribed conversion within three months! Theophanes tells us that heathens and heretics were to be excluded from public office.

From pt. iii. of John's history we learn that in the 2nd year of Tiberius (A.D.579), upon the rumour of a heathen plot to destroy the Christians of Baalbec, the emperor ordered an officer named Theophilus to suppress paganism in the East. Torture, crucifixion, the sword, wild beasts, were among the means employed. Numbers were accused; the prisons teemed with victims of every rank; and a permanent inquisition was established for their trial.

As bp. of Ephesus or |Asia,| John appears to have supervised all the Monophysite congregations of Asia Minor. His 30 years of influence at the court of Justinian and his high personal qualities gave him very considerable authority among his own party. He tells us (v.1) that in the reign of Justin II. he |was dwelling in the royal city and controlling all the revenues of all the congregations of the Faithful there and in every place.| In a chapter written A.D.581 he mentions his old intimacy with Tiberius at the court of Justin: |He and I were often together, and stood with the other courtiers before the serene Justin | (iii.22).

John suffered grievously in the persecution instigated first by John Scholasticus, whom he calls John of Sirmin, and afterwards by Eutychius. Together with Paul of Aphrodisias (subsequently patriarch of Antioch), Stephen, bp. of Cyprus, and the bp. Elisha, John of Ephesus was imprisoned in the patriarch's palace. In the heated debates which followed, the four Monophysite bishops stoutly charged John of Sirmin with breach of the canons in annulling the orders of their clergy, and, when the patriarch demanded of them |a union such as that between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch,| declared their willingness provided they might drive out the council of Chalcedon from the church, as Cyril had driven out Nestarius. The vacillating emperor, of whom John testifies that for six years he had been friendly to the |orthodox,| attempted to secure peace by drawing up a dogmatic formula, in the shape of an imperial edict, which he sent to the four captive bishops for revision. Their changes were admitted, but the |Nestorians and semi-Nestorians| of the court -- so John puts it -- scared the timid emperor into further alterations, of which the chief was an inserted clause, | that the customs of the church were to be maintained,| which meant that the obnoxious council was still to be proclaimed from the diptychs. Weary of the dispute, and probably not understanding its grounds, Justin now signed the document, and required the subscription of John of Ephesus and his companions. They declined, and 33 days passed in constant wrangling between them and the patriarch. Meanwhile they were kept under close guard; the patriarch's creatures stripped them of everything; friends were denied admittance to their prison; and their personal followers were also confined in the dungeons of the palace. The misery of the four bishops was aggravated by the reproaches of the leading Monophysite laymen, who supposed that their obstinacy alone hindered a compromise which would stop the persecution. The cunning patriarch was careful to encourage this belief. At last his victims gave way, the patriarch promising upon oath that the council of Chalcedon should be sacrificed. The four bishops twice communicated with him; but when they reminded him of his promise, he referred them to the pope; he could not, for their sakes, risk a schism from Rome. Our historian touchingly describes the sorrow of himself and his companions over this fraud; even their opponents pitied them, until they once more faced them with galling taunts, which led to a second imprisonment (i.17-25). The emperor made further fruitless attempts at conciliation. The upshot of a discussion before the senate was that the four bishops boldly uttered their anathema |upon the whole heresy of the two natures,| and renounced communion with their deceivers for ever. Thereupon they were sentenced to |banishment.| The sentence was at once carried out. They never saw each other again. John of Ephesus was confined in the hospital of Eubulus at
Constantinople. Though helpless from gout and exposed to swarms of vermin, he was denied all assistance. As he lay in his filthy prison, it seemed to him that his feverish thirst was slaked and his misery comforted by a heavenly visitant, whose coming he describes with much pathos and simplicity. After a year he was removed to an island, where he remained 18 months, when the Caesar Tiberius ordered his release. For three years, however, he was under surveillance, until the patriarch died (A.D.578). Before the outbreak of this persecution, John of Ephesus and Paul of Aphrodisias had argued publicly with Conon and Eugenius, the founders of the Cononites, nicknamed Tritheites, in the presence of the patriarch and his synod, by command of Justin (v.3). Conon had vainly tried to win the support of John, who proved to him that he was a heretic and afterwards wrote him a letter of warning (v.1-12). Eutychius, who, upon the death of John of Sirmin, was restored to the patriarchal throne, was hardly more tolerant of Monophysites than its late occupant. Persecution was renewed, and John of Ephesus again met with disgraceful injustice. By another imprisonment Eutychius wrung from him the resignation of a property which Callinicus, a chief officer of the court, had bestowed, and which John had largely improved and converted into a monastery. After being further deprived of his right of receiving five loaves at the public distributions, for which he had paid 300 darics, John was released.

Tiberius, Justin's successor, though unwilling to persecute, was overcome by popular clamour. The mob of the capital groundlessly suspected their new emperor of Arian leanings (iii.13, 26). An edict was therefore published ordering the arrest of Arians, Manicheans, etc. Under cover of this, the |orthodox| were once more harried and plundered. The first victim was John of Ephesus (iii.15), who had now lived many years and suffered much in Constantinople. He and his friends were incarcerated at Christmas in a miserable prison called the Cancellum (A.D.578?); and after much fruitless argument were finally ordered to leave the city.

It is greatly to our historian's credit that, during the bitter strife which raged long among the Monophysites themselves, in the matter of the double election of Theodore and Peter to succeed Theodosius as their patriarch of Alexandria, he maintained an honourable neutrality, standing equally aloof from Paulites and Jacobites, although his sympathies were with Theodore, the injured patriarch (iv.9-48). John wrote his account of this pernicious quarrel in 583, the 2nd year of Maurice; for he says that it had already lasted 8 years (iv.11), and that he is writing an outline of events from the year of Alexander 886 (A.D.575) onwards (iv.13). In his anxiety to heal the schism, John sent 10 epistles to |the blessed Jacob| [[318]JACOBUS BARADAEUS], protesting his own neutrality, and urging reconciliation between the two factions (iv.46); and after Jacob's death (A.D.581) his party made overtures to John of Ephesus, then living at the capital, to induce him to recognize Peter of Callinicus as patriarch of Antioch in place of Paul (iv.45). In reply the historian rebuked them for violating the canons. John accuses both sides of an utter want of mutual charity, and an entire aversion to calm examination of the grounds of their quarrel. He adds that he has briefly recorded the main facts from the outset to the current year, 896 (A.D.585) -- the latest date observable in his work.

The Ecclesiastical History. -- John states (pt. iii. bk. i. c.3) that he has already written a history of the church, |beginning from the times of Julius Caesar, as far as to the sixth year of the reign of Justin II., son of the sister of Justinian.| If, as Dr. Payne Smith assumes, pt. i. was a mere abridgment of Eusebius, its loss is not a great one. The disappearance of pt. ii. is more unfortunate, as it would probably have furnished much important matter for the reign of Justinian. It brought the history down to 571. Pt. iii. continues it to c.585, thus covering the period between the 6th year of Justin II. and the 4th of Maurice. It was called forth by the persecution above mentioned, which broke out in the 6th or 7th year of Justin, and the writer often apologizes for want of chronological order, occasional repetitions, and even inconsistencies of statement (see esp. i.3; ii.50), as defects due to the stress of untoward circumstances: |This should be known to critics: many of these stories were penned in time of persecution . . . people conveyed away the papers inscribed with these chapters, and the other papers and writings, into divers places, and in some instances they remained hidden so long as two or three years in one place or another| (ii.50). John had no memoranda of what he had already written, and never found opportunity for revision. With these drawbacks, the work possesses special interest as an original account. John was contemporary with most of the characters described; he writes of what he himself saw and heard and of doings in which he was personally concerned. For 30 years he was a trusted servant of Justinian; and Gibbon would probably have recognized in the second part of his history a valuable gauge of the servility and the malice of Procopius. Had Gibbon possessed the third part of John's work, he would hardly have surmised that |the sentiments of Justin II. were pure and benevolent,| or believed that the four last years of that emperor |were passed in tranquil obscurity| (cf. iii.1-6); had he read what John has to say of the worthless stepson of Belisarius he might have rated |the gallant Photius| less highly; and he would have learned that it was the thoughtless improvidence of Tiberius which forced the unhappy Maurice to appear a grasping niggard (cf. iii.11; v.20). As regards chronology, Assemani, who did not love a Monophysite, accuses John of inaccuracy, asserting that he used a peculiar Greek era, making almost all Justinian's acts and his death ten years later than the dates assigned by Evagrius, Theophanes, and Cedrenus. But in pt. iii. (v.13) John gives the usual date for Justinian's death -- Nov.14, 876 . Of Theophanes Gibbon has said that he is |full of strange blunders| and |his chronology is loose and inaccurate|; his verdict in regard to John of Ephesus would have been very different.

His attitude to the great controversy of his day is that of one thoroughly convinced that his own party holds exclusive possession of the truth. The Monophysites are |the orthodox,| |the faithful|; their opponents |Synodites,| |Nestorians,| or at least |half-Nestorians|; the synod of Chalcedon is |the stumbling-block and source of confusion of the whole church|; |it sunders Christ our God into two natures after the Union, and teaches a Quaternity instead of the holy Trinity| (i.10, 18); the four bishops taunt the patriarch with |the heresy of the two natures, and the blasphemies of the synod, and of the tome of Leo| (i.18). Yet John does not labour to blacken the memory of his adversaries; the strong terms in which he speaks of the pride of power and savage tyranny of John Scholasticus are warranted or at least excused by facts (i.5, 12, 37); and Baronius denounces John of Sirmin in language equally decided (H. E. ad ann.564). In regard to Eutychius, John protests his adherence to truth: |Although we declare ourselves opposed to the excellent patriarch Eutychius, yet from the truth we have not swerved in one thing out of a hundred; nor was it from eagerness to revile and ridicule that we committed these things to writing| (iii.22). His impartiality is manifest in his description of the great schism which rent asunder his own communion; unsparing in his censure of both factions, he refers their wicked and worse than heathenish rancour to the instigation of devils (iv.19, 22, 39). Credulous John was, but credulity was a common attribute of his age. More serious objection might be taken to his approval of the cruelties connected with the suppression of heathenism (iii.34) and his intolerance of |heresy| other than his own. In 550 he dug up and burnt the bones of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, the false prophets of Montanism (Extr. ap. Dionys.). Herein also he shared the temper of his contemporaries. The spirit of persecution is not the peculiar mark of any age, church, or sect. Apart from these blemishes we may recognize in him an historian who sincerely loved truth; a bishop who was upright and devoted; and a man whose piety rested upon a thorough knowledge of Scripture.

His style, like that of most Syriac writers, is verbose and somewhat unwieldy, but has the eloquence of simple truth and homely pathos.

The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus was first edited from the unique MS. in the Brit. Mus. by Dr. Cureton (Oxf.1853) -- a splendid reproduction of the original -- and translated into English by Dr. Payne Smith (Oxf.1860) and into German by Schönfelder (München, 1862). These versions are of great assistance, many chapters being defective in the original.

[C.J.B.]

Joannes II, bishop of Jerusalem
Joannes (216) II., bp. of Jerusalem, 386-417, in succession to Cyril; a prelate known to us chiefly through the invectives of Jerome, and hence particularly difficult to estimate. Imbued with that tendency of Eastern church teachers which formed their chief difference from those of the Western church, he with difficulty brought himself to acquiesce in the condemnation of Origenism or to take any steps against Pelagius, with whom he was brought in contact at the close of his episcopacy, and the presence of Jerome and other immigrants from Italy, and the anti-Origenistic vehemence of Epiphanius of Salamis and Theophilus of Alexandria, made it impossible for him to escape the reproach of laxity and even at times of heresy.

Born between 350 and 356 (Hieron. Ep. lxxxii.8, ed. Vall.), he passed as a young man some time among the monks of Nitria in Egypt. There he, no doubt, imbibed his affection for Origen's teaching, and probably became acquainted with two persons who had much to do with his own subsequent history and with that of the Origenistic controversy -- the monk Isidore (one of the Long Monks) and Rufinus. During the troublous times before the accession of Theodosius, when Arianism was in the ascendant, he declined, teste Jerome (cont. Joan. Jerus.4), to communicate with the orthodox bishops exiled by Valens. But no imputation of Arianism rests upon him. He was evidently esteemed very highly, and of great eloquence (ib.41) and subtlety of mind. His flatterers compared him with Chrysippus, Plato, and Demosthenes (ib.4). He was little more than 30 years old (Hieron. Ep. lxxxii.8, ed. Vall.) when chosen to succeed Cyril as bp. of Jerusalem. It was a see of great importance, subject in certain respects to the metropolitan at Caesarea, but acting at times independently; of great wealth (cont. Joan. Jerus.14), and of great interest for its holy places, which were visited by pilgrims from all parts. It had also a special interest from the settlements of distinguished persons from the West, which made it during his episcopate a focus of Christian and literary activity, and with two of which, that of Rufinus and Melania on the Mount of Olives, and of Jerome and Paula at Bethlehem, he was destined to have close but similar relations. Jerome accuses him of making a gain of his bishopric and living in luxury (Comm. in Joann. c.14, and Ep. lvii.12); but this may be only the common animus of monk against bishop, embittered by momentary resentment. The clergy of Jerusalem were certainly attached to him. Rufinus thought it a sufficient defence of his own faith to say that it was that preached at Jerusalem by the holy bp. John (Ruf. Apol. i.13). But the most important testimony is given by the pope Anastasius, in a letter to him in 401, a time when the adversaries of John, Pammachius, and Marcella had access to the pope, and only two or three years after Jerome's Philippic was composed. Anastasius speaks of the splendour of his holiness and his divine virtues; his eminence and his praise are so conspicuous that he cannot find words equal to his merits. He accounts it an honour to have received praise from one of so serene and heavenly a disposition, the splendour of whose episcopate shines throughout the world (see Vallarsi's Rufnus, pp.408, 409; Migne's Patr. Lat. xxi.).

When John became bishop, Rufinus had already been settled on the Mount of Olives some nine years, and Jerome and his friends were just entering on their work at Bethlehem. At first he lived in impartial friendship with them both, seeking out Jerome especially (|;nos suo arbitrio diligebat,| Hieron. Ep. lxxxii.11, ed. Vall.), and making use of Rufinus, whom he ordained, as a learned man, in business which required his special talents. After some six years their peace was disturbed. A certain Aterbius (Hieron. cont. Ruf. iii.33), who by his officious insinuations and imputations of Origenistic heresy caused the first breach between Jerome and Rufinus, had, no doubt, some dealings with the bishop also; and, probably through him, the suspicions of Epiphanius, the venerable bp. of Salamis, were aroused. When Epiphanius came to Jerusalem in 394, the strife broke out. For the controversy see EPIPHANIUS (1) and HIERONYMUS (2). During the dispute between Jerome and Rufinus, John in no way intervened. Zöckler (Hieron. p.249) thinks him to have inclined rather to the side of Jerome. We certainly find Jerome, in a letter to Theophilus, in commendation of his encyclical (Ep. lxxxvi., ed. Vall.), pleading for his bishop. John had accepted a person under the ban of Theophilus who had come from Jerusalem to Alexandria, and thus had incurred the wrath of that fierce prelate; but Jerome represented that Theophilus had sent no letters condemnatory of this person, and that it would be rash to condemn John for a supposed fault committed in ignorance. As regards Rufinus, John wrote a letter to pope Anastasius, the tenor of which can be only dimly inferred from the pope's extant reply. John was apparently less anxious to defend Rufinus than to secure his own freedom from implication in the charges made against Rufinus by Jerome's friends at Rome. The pope, with fulsome expressions of esteem for John, bids him put such fears away and judge Rufinus for himself. He professes to know nothing about Origen, not even who he was, while yet he has condemned his opinions; and as to Rufinus, he only says that, if his translation of the works of Origen implies an acceptance of his opinions (a matter which he leaves to his own conscience), he must see where he can procure absolution. That John was not then in familiar communication with Rufinus, but was with Jerome, may be inferred from the fact that Jerome used this letter in his controversy with Rufinus (cont. Ruf. ii.14), while Rufinus did not know of its existence, and, when he heard of it, treated it as an invention of Jerome (ib. iii.20). The reconciliation of John with the monks of Bethlehem is further attested by Sulpicius Severus (Dial. i.8), who had stayed six months at Bethlehem, and says that John had entrusted to Jerome and his brother the charge of the parish of Bethlehem. A letter from Chrysostom to John in 404 (Migne's Patr. Gk. vol. lii.) shews that he had taken Chrysostom's part; then we hear nothing more of John for 12 or 13 years, when the Pelagian controversy brings him forward once more. Pelagius and Coelestius, having come in 415 to Jerusalem, were encountered by Orosius, the friend of Augustine, who had come to visit Jerome, and afterwards by the Gaulish bishops Heros and Lazarus. Orosius, who recounts these transactions in the first nine chaps. of his Liber de Arbitrii Libertate, addressed himself to John, as did also Pelagius; but John was not willing to accept without inquiry the decrees of the council of Carthage and resented their being pressed upon him by Orosius. The two parties were in secret conflict for some time, till John determined on holding a synod to end the strife, on July 28, 415. John was the only bishop present; the rest were presbyters and laymen. He shewed some consideration towards Pelagius, allowing him, though a layman, to sit among the presbyters; and when there was a clamour against Pelagius for shewing disrespect for the name and authority of Augustine, John, by saying, |I am Augustine,| undertook both to ensure respect to that great teacher and not to allow his authority to be pressed too far against his antagonist. |If,| cried Orosius, |you represent Augustine, follow Augustine's judgment.| John thereupon asked him if he was ready to become the accuser of Pelagius; but Orosius declined this duty, saying that Pelagius had been condemned by the African bishops, whose decisions John ought to accept. The proceedings were somewhat confused from the necessity of employing an interpreter. Finally, it was determined to send a letter to pope Innocentius and to abide by his judgment. Meanwhile, John imposed silence upon both parties. This satisfied neither. The opinions of Pelagius continued to be spread by private intercourse, and Augustine wrote to remonstrate with John against the toleration of heresy. On the arrival of the Gaulish bishops Heros and Lazarus, another synod was held at Diospolis (416) under the presidency of Euzoïus, the metropolitan bp. of Caesarea, in which John again took part. Augustine, in his work against Julianus, records the decision of this council, which was favourable to Pelagius, but considers his acquittal due to uncertainties occasioned by difference of language, which enabled Pelagius to express himself in seemingly orthodox words; and both in this work and in his letter to John he treats John as a brother-bishop whom he holds in high esteem. Meanwhile, the more intemperate partisans of Pelagius resorted to open violence. The dialogue of Jerome against the Pelagians, though mild compared with his other controversial works, incensed them, and they proceeded to burn the monasteries of Bethlehem. The attitude of John at this time cannot be gathered with any certainty. That he was in any way an accomplice in such proceedings is incredible. Nothing of the sort appears from the letters of Jerome, though he speaks in a resigned manner of his losses. Complaints, however, of the ill-treatment of Jerome and the Roman ladies at Bethlehem reached pope Innocent, who wrote to John a letter (Hieron. Ep. cxxxvii., ed. Vall.) of sharp rebuke. He does not imply that John had been accessory to the violence; but, considering that a bishop ought to be able to prevent such acts or at least relieve their consequences, he bids him take care that no further violence is done, on pain of the laws of the church being put in force against him. The view here taken of these transactions, which is that of Zöckler (Hieron. pp.310-316), is opposed by Thierry (St. Jerome, bk. xii. c. iii.), who looks upon John as a partisan of Pelagius and as the enemy of Jerome to the end. John was now at the close of his career. Possibly the letter of Innocentius never reached him, for it can hardly have been written, as Vallarsi shews (pref. to Hieron. sub. litt. cxxxv.-cxxxviii.), before 417, and John died (see Ceillier, vii.497, etc.) on Jan.10 in that year. After a troubled episcopate of 30 years and a life of from 60 to 65 years, failing health may have prevented his exercising full control in this last and most painful episode of his career.

Several works are attributed to him (see Ceillier, vii.97, etc.). Gennadius (30) mentions one which he wrote in his own defence; but no work of his is extant. He must, therefore, always be viewed through the medium of other, mostly hostile, writers, and through the mists of controversy.

[W.H.F.]

Joannes III., bishop of Jerusalem
Joannes (217) III., bp. of Jerusalem, 513-524. On the banishment of Elias, bp. of Jerusalem, by the emperor Anastasius, John, deacon of the Anastasis, was forcibly thrust into his episcopal seat by Olympius, prefect of Palestine, on his engaging to receive Severus of Antioch into communion and to anathematize the decrees of Chalcedon (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Sab. cc.37, 56). Such an engagement awoke the orthodox zeal of St. Sabas and the other fathers of the desert, who successfully used their influence with the new-made bishop to prevent the fulfilment of the compact, which Olympius lacked sufficient firmness to enforce. Anastasius, recalling Olympius, dispatched in his room a name-sake of his own, who had offered to forfeit 300 pounds of gold if he failed to induce John to fulfil his agreement, A.D.517. The prefect Anastasius surprised the unsuspicious bishop and threw him into prison until he should fulfil his promise. This step delighted the populace, who regarded John as having obtained Elias's seat by fraud. Zacharias, one of the leading men of Caesarea, gaining a secret interview with the imprisoned bishop, persuaded him to feign assent to Anastasius's requirements and promise, if he would release him from prison, to publicly signify, on the following Sunday, his agreement to the original conditions. Anastasius, believing John's professions, liberated him. On the Sunday a vast concourse assembled, including 10,000 monks. Anastasius was present with his officials to receive the expected submission. John, having ascended the ambo, supported by Theodosius and Sabas, the leaders of the monastic party, was received with vociferous shouts, |Anathematize the heretics!| |Confirm the synod!| When silence was secured, John and his two companions pronounced a joint anathema on Nestorius, Eutyches, Soterichus of the Cappadocian Caesarea, and all who rejected the decrees of Chalcedon. Anastasius, utterly unprepared for this open violation of the compact, was too much terrified by the turbulent multitude, evidently prepared for violence, and hastily escaped to Caesarea. The emperor, though furious, had too much on his hands to attend to ecclesiastical disputes at Jerusalem, and John was allowed to go unpunished. The death of Anastasius in 518, and the succession of Justin, changed the whole situation. Orthodoxy was now in the ascendant. The whole East followed the example of the capital, and John could, without fear of consequences, summon his synod to make the same profession of faith with his brother-patriarch in the imperial city, and was received into communion by pope Hormisdas, at the request of Justin (ib. c.60). John died A.D.524, after an episcopate of 11 years. Theophan. Chronogr. p.136; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi.721; Fleury, H. E. livre xxi. cc.27, 28; Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii.185.

[E.V.]

Joannes I., bishop of Rome
Joannes (346) I., bp. of Rome after Hormisdas, Aug.13, 523, to May 18, 526. The emperor Justin, having during the pontificate of Hormisdas restored the churches in the East to orthodoxy and communion with Rome, continued to shew his orthodox zeal by the persecution of heretics. Having already suppressed the Eutychians and Nestorians, he issued in 523 a severe edict against Manicheans, condemning them, wherever found, to banishment or death (Cod. Justin. leg.12). Justin's edict had debarred other heretics from public offices, but had excepted the Arian Goths because of his league with Theodoric, the Gothic king of Italy. Soon afterwards, however, he proceeded against the Arians also, ordering all their churches to be consecrated anew for the use of the Catholics. Theodoric, who, though an Arian, had hitherto granted toleration to Catholics in his own dominions, remonstrated with the emperor by letter, but without effect. He therefore applied to the bp. of Rome, whom he sent for to Ravenna, desiring him to go to Constantinople to use his influence with the emperor, and threatening that, unless toleration were conceded to Arians in the East, he would himself withhold it from Catholics in the West. John went (A.D.525), accompanied by five bishops and four senators. The unprecedented event of a visit by a bishop of Rome to Constantinople caused a great sensation there. He was received with the utmost respect by acclaiming crowds and by the emperor. Invited by the patriarch Epiphanius to celebrate Easter with him in the great church, he consented only if seated on a throne above that of the patriarch. He officiated in Latin and according to the Latin rite. None were excluded from his communion except Timotheus, patriarch of Alexandria (Theophan.; Marcellin. Com.). Anastasius (Lib. Pontif.) states that the emperor, though now in the 8th year of his reign, bowing to the ground before the vicar of St. Peter, solicited and obtained the honour of being crowned by him. There is concurrence of testimony that John obtained a cessation of Justin's measures against the Arians. Baronius and Binius, anxious to clear a pope from tolerating heresy, insist that John dissuaded the emperor from the concessions demanded. Against this supposition Pagi (Critic.) cites the following: |Justin, having heard the legation, promised that he would do all, except that those who had been reconciled to the Catholic faith could by no means be restored to the Arians| (Anonym. Vales.); |The venerable pope and senators returned with glory, having obtained all they asked from Justin| (Anastasius); |Justinus Augustus granted the whole petition, and restored to the heretics their churches, according to the wish of Theodoric the heretical king, lest Christians, and especially priests, should be put to the sword| (Auctor. Chron. Veterum Pontificum); |Having come to Augustus, they requested him with many tears to accept favourably the tenour of their embassy, however unjust; and he, moved by their tears, granted what they asked, and left the Arians unmolested| (Miscell. lib.15, ad ann. vi. Justin). Whatever the cause, it is certain that John and the legates were, on returning, received with displeasure by Theodoric and imprisoned at Ravenna, where the pope died on May 18, 526. His body was buried in St. Peter's at Rome on May 27, on which day he appears in the Roman Martyrology as a saint and martyr. See also Fragm. Vales. Greg. Dial. i. iii. c.2.

[J.B -- Y.]

Joannes II. Mercurius, bishop of Rome
Joannes (347) II. (called Mercurius), bp. of Rome after Boniface II., Dec.31, 532, to May 27, 535, a Roman by birth who had been a Roman presbyter (Anastas. Lib. Pont.) The canvassings and contests then usual delayed the election 11 weeks. Church funds were used and sacred vessels publicly sold for bribery (Ep. Athalaric. ad Joann. pap.; Cassiodor. Variar. l. ix.; Ep.15).

The most noteworthy incident of his brief reign is a doctrinal decision, in which he appears at first sight to differ from one of his predecessors. Pope Hormisdas had in 522 written in strong condemnation of certain Scythian monks who had upheld the statement that |one of the Trinity| (Unus ex Trinitate) |suffered in the flesh.| His rejection of the phrase had at the time been construed so as to imply heresy (Ep. Maxent. ad Hormisd.), and now the Acoemetae, or |Sleepless Monks,| of Constantinople argued from it in favour of the Nestorian position that Mary was not truly and properly the mother of God; saying with reason that, if He Who suffered in the flesh was not of the Trinity, neither was He Who was born in the flesh. The emperor Justinian, supported by the patriarch Epiphanius, having condemned the position of the |Sleepless Monks,| they sent a deputation to Rome, urging the pope to support their deduction from the supposed doctrine of his predecessor. The emperor, having embodied his view of the true doctrine in an imperial edict, sent it with an embassy to Rome and a letter requesting the pope to signify in writing to himself and the patriarch his acceptance of the doctrine of the edict, which he lays down as indubitably true, and assumes to be, as a matter of course, the doctrine of the Roman see (Inter. Epp. Joann. II. Labbe). But the edict was a distinct assertion of the correctness of the phrase contended for by the Scythian monks and so much objected to by Hormisdas. Its words are, |The sufferings, as well as miracles, which Christ of His own accord endured in the flesh are of one and the same. For we do not know God the Word as one and Christ as another, but one and the same| (Lex. Justin. Cod.1, i.6). In his letter Justinian expresses himself similarly.

John, having received both deputations, assembled the Roman clergy, who at first could come to no agreement. But afterwards a synod convened by the pope accepted and confirmed Justinian's confession of faith. To this effect he wrote to the emperor on Mar.25, 534 (Joann. II. Ep. ii.; Labbe) and to the Roman senators, laying down the true doctrine as the emperor had defined it, and warning them not to communicate with the |Sleepless Monks.|

It is true that we do not find in the letters of Hormisdas any distinct condemnation of the phrase itself, however strongly he inveighed against its upholders, as troublesome and dangerous innovators. But the fact remains that a doctrinal statement which one pope strongly discountenanced, as at any rate unnecessary and fraught with danger, was, twelve years afterwards, at the instance of an emperor, authoritatively propounded by another. Justinian's view, which John accepted, has ever since been received as orthodox.

In 534 John, being consulted by Caesarius of Arles as to Contumeliosus, bp. of Riez in Gaul, wrote to Caesarius, to the bishops of Gaul, and to the clergy of Riez, directing the guilty bishop to be confined in a monastery.

A letter assigned to this pope by the Pseudo-Isidore, addressed to a bp. Valerius, on the relation of the Son to the Father, is spurious.

[J.B -- Y.]

Joannes III, bishop of Rome
Joannes (348) III., bp. of Rome, after Pelagius, July 18, 560, to July 12, 573, ordained after a vacancy of 4 months and 17 days, was the son of a person of distinction at Rome (Anastas. Lib. Pont.). There are two incidents in which his name appears. Two bishops in Gaul had been deposed by a synod held by order of king Guntram at Lyons under the metropolitan Nicetius. The deposed prelates obtained the king's leave to appeal to Rome, and John III. ordered their restoration (Greg. Turon. Hist. l. v. cc.20, 27). The second incident is mentioned by Anastasius (Lib. Pont. in Vit. Joann. III.), and by Paulus Diaconus (i.5). The exarch Narses, having retired to Naples, there invited the Lombards to invade Italy. The pope went to him, and persuaded him to return to Rome. This incident, discredited by Baronius (Ann.567, Nos.8-12) is credited by Pagi and Muratori (cf. Gibbon, c. xlv.).

[J.B -- Y.]

Joannes Presbyter
Joannes (444) Presbyter, a shadowy personage of the sub-apostolic age, the reasons for belief in his existence being solely derived from an inference drawn by Eusebius from language used in a passage of Papias. In the middle of the 3rd cent. Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii.25) had maintained on critical grounds that the author of the fourth gospel and of the Catholic epistle could not also have been the author of the Apocalypse. Dionysius takes for granted that the author of the gospel was John the apostle, and has no difficulty in conceding that the name of the author of the Apocalypse was also John, since the writer himself says so; but urges that he never claims to be the apostle. He calls himself simply John, without adding that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved, or who leaned on our Lord's breast, or the brother of James, or in any way forcing us to identify him with the son of Zebedee. Now, there were many Johns, and it is said that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each called John's. Except in the statement last made, Dionysius does not pretend to have found any actual trace of any John of the apostolic age besides John the apostle and John Mark. His argument is merely that if we have good critical reasons for believing the authors of the gospel and of the Apocalypse to be distinct, the fact that both bore the name John does not force us to identify them. Some 75 years later Eusebius found historic evidence for regarding as a fact what Dionysius had suggested as a possibility. He produces from the preface to the work of Papias an extract, for a fuller discussion of which see PAPIAS. What concerns us here is that Papias, speaking of his care in collecting oral traditions of the apostolic times, says, |on any occasion when a person came in my way, who had been a follower of the elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the elders -- what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord say| (Lightfoot's trans.). Eusebius points out that as the name John occurs here twice: the first time in a list of apostles, no doubt representing John the apostle; the second time in a different list, after the name of Aristion and with the title elder prefixed, it must represent a different person. Thus the John whose traditions Papias several times records is the elder, not the apostle. We find thus, remarks Eusebius, that |the account of those is true who have stated that two persons in Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John.| |It is likely that the second (unless we allow that it was, as some would have it, the first) beheld the revelation ascribed to John| (H. E. iii.39). Although Eusebius does not here name Dionysius of Alexandria, he plainly had in mind that passage of his writings which he gives at length elsewhere. The ambiguous way in which he speaks of the Apocalypse shews that his personal inclination was to pronounce it non-apostolical, but that he was kept in check by the weight of authority in its favour. The silence of Eusebius indicates that the other passages in Papias where John was mentioned contained no decisive indications what John was intended.

Modern writers have not been unanimous in their judgment on this criticism of Eusebius. Several reject it, judging Papias to be mentioning one John twice. So Milligan (Journal Sac. Lit. Oct.1867), Riggenbach (Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. xiii.319), Zahn (Stud. und Krit.1866, p.650, Acta Johannis, 1880, p. cliv.). But a far more powerful array of critics endorses the conclusion of Eusebius e.g. Steitz (Stud. and Krit.1868, p.63), Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev. Aug.1875, p.379), Westcott (N. T. Canon. p.69); while less orthodox critics with one consent base their theories with confidence on John the Elder being as historical as SS. Peter or Paul.

The argument of Eusebius, on the other hand, seems to have made little impression at the time and his successors seem to know only of one John and go on speaking of Papias as the hearer of John the apostle. In this they follow Irenaeus; and it is an important fact that Irenaeus, who was very familiar with the work of Papias of which he made large use and whose Eastern origin ought to have acquainted him with the traditions of the Asiatic church, shews no symptom of having heard of any John but the apostle, and describes Papias (v.33, p.333) as a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp. That Polycarp was a hearer of John the apostle is stated explicitly by Irenaeus in his letter to Victor (Eus. H. E. v.24; see also his letter to Florinus, v.20). That Polycarp was made bp. of Smyrna by John the apostle is stated by Tertullian (Praes. v.30) and was never doubted by subsequent writers. Polycrates, appealing to the great lights of the church of Asia (Eus. v.24), names John, who leaned on our Lord's breast, who sleeps at Ephesus, but says nothing about any second John buried there or elsewhere. The silence of Dionysius of Alexandria is positive proof that no tradition of a second John had reached him. If he knew and remembered the passage in Papias it did not occur to him to draw from it the same inference as Eusebius. Neither, though he mentions the two monuments at Ephesus, both bearing the name of John, does he say what would have been very much to his purpose, that he had heard that they were supposed to commemorate different persons; and in fact Jerome, who in his |catalogue| repeats the story, tells us that some held that the same John was commemorated by both. The Acts of Leucius are notoriously the source whence the Fathers, from the 4th cent., derived Johannine traditions. While disagreeing with Zahn's opinion that Leucius was earlier than Papias, it is highly probable that he was a full century earlier than Eusebius, and we can assert, with as much confidence as such a thing can be asserted of a book of which only fragments remain, that Leucius mentioned no John but the apostle. If when Leucius put his stories together any tradition had remained of a second John, this would surely have been among the Leucian names of the apostle's disciples, so many of which we are able to enumerate. Eusebius had not thought of his theory at the time of his earlier work, the Chronicle, in which he describes Papias as a disciple of the evangelist. Jerome also is not
self-consistent, speaking in one way when immediately under the influence of Eusebius, at other times following the older tradition. In the East the only trace of the theory of Eusebius is that the Apostolic Constitutions (vii.46) make John ordain another John, as bp. of Ephesus in succession to Timothy. The writers who used the work of Papias do not seem to suspect that any John but the apostle was the source of his information. One fragment (Gebhardt and Harnack, 2nd ed. No. iii. p.93) was preserved by Apollinarius, who describes Papias as a disciple of John; some authorities add |the apostle,| but wherever John is mentioned without addition no other is meant. Anastasius of Sinai (Gebhardt, No. vi.) describes Papias as ho en to epistethio phoitesas; No. vii. as ho Ioannou tou euangelistou phoitetes; Maximus confessor (No. ix.) describes him as sunakmasanta to theio euangeliste Ioanne. An anonymous but ancient note even makes Papias the scribe who wrote the gospel from the apostle's dictation. Thus Eusebius stands completely alone among ancient authorities, differing alike from his predecessors and successors. It by no means necessarily follows that he was wrong. If he has correctly interpreted the language of Papias, the authority of so ancient a witness outweighs that of any number of later writers. We can conceive either that there were two Johns in Asia, and that the latter's fame was so absorbed by the glory of his greater namesake that all remembrance of him was lost; or else we may imagine that the second John, the source of apostolic traditions to the Asiatic churches, was held in such high consideration that, though not really so, he passed in common fame as the apostle.

The supposition that John the apostle was never in Asia Minor has been embraced by Keim (Jesu von Nazara), Scholten (Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien) and others. But except that the recognition of the residence of a different John in Asia opens the possibility of a confusion, their reasons for disbelief in the apostle's residence in Asia are worthless. There is an immense mass of patristic testimony that John the apostle lived to a great age and died in Asia in the reign of Trajan.

If, then, both John the apostle and the elder taught in Asia, can we transfer to the second anything traditionally told of the first? Dionysius and Eusebius transfer to him the authorship of the Apocalypse, but those who now divide the Johannine books between these two Johns unanimously give the Apocalypse to the first. St. Jerome assigns to |the Elder| the two minor epistles, and this is a very natural inference from their inscription. That is a modest one, if the writer could have claimed the dignity of apostle; but if not, it seems arrogant to designate himself as the elder when there must have been elders in every city. There is also a great assumption of authority in the tone of the 3rd epistle. The writer sends his legates to the churches of the district, is angry if these legates are not respectfully received, and addresses the churches in a tone of command. It may be suggested as an explanation of this, that the writer knew himself to be the sole survivor in the district of the first Christian generation; and it agrees with this that Papias describes him as a disciple of our Lord, yet speaks of him in the present tense while he speaks of the apostles in the past. But this hypothesis is scarcely tenable if we believe what is told of the great age attained by the apostle John, who is said to have lived to the reign of Trajan. This hardly leaves room for any one who could claim to have heard our Lord to acquire celebrity after the apostle's decease. Further, no one who used the fourth gospel only could know that there had been an apostle named John. Even our Lord's forerunner, called in other gospels John the Baptist, in this is simply John, as if there were no need to distinguish him from any other. The apostle alone would not feel such need, therefore if he were the author of the gospel, all is intelligible; but if the author were his disciple, is it conceivable that he should thus suppress the name of his great master and predecessor in labour in Asia; and if beside the apostle there were in our Lord's circle another John, is it conceivable that the writer should not have distinguished between them?

Thus the Eusebian interpretation of Papias must stand on its own merits. It obtains no confirmation from independent testimony, nor does it solve any perplexing problems. It is certainly possible that we with our more powerful instruments of criticism may be able to resolve a double star which had appeared to the early observers single. Yet considering how much closer and more favourably circumstanced they were, we have need to look well that the mistake is not our own. One Eusebian argument must then be rejected, namely, that by calling his second John the elder, Papias meant to distinguish him from the apostle. This would be so if he had called the first John an apostle, but actually he calls him an elder. If we suppose, as do Lightfoot and others, that he uses the word elder in two different senses, at least the word cannot be used the second time to distinguish him from those to whom it is applied the first time. If it is to distinguish him from any one it is from Aristion, to whom, though also called a disciple of the Lord, this name is not applied. Hence Eusebius's second argument, that Papias by placing John after Aristion meant to assign to him a less honourable place, fails since John is given a title of dignity which is refused to Aristion. Some light is thrown on the sense in which the word elder is applied to John by Papias in his preface by the fact that one of his traditions is told with the formula, |These things the elder used to say.| This must surely mean more than that the authority cited was one of the many presbyters of the church and we cannot help connecting with it the fact revealed by the minor Johannine epistles, that there was some one in the Asiatic church who spoke of himself, and no doubt was habitually spoken of by others, as |the Elder.|

The only Eusebian argument then that remains is that Papias mentions the name John twice over and therefore may be presumed to speak of two Johns. But might he not first enumerate John in his list of seven apostles, concerning whom he had been able to glean traditions, and a second time in his shorter list of men of the first Christian generation who had survived to his own day? Papias wrote for the men of his time, to whom the facts were well known, and the idea of being misunderstood would no more occur to him than it would to us, if we spoke of one of our leading statesmen at one moment by his surname only, the next with the addition of his title or Christian name. The second time the title |elder| is used it does not mean |one of the first generation of Christians,| for Aristion to whom the title is refused was that; it does not mean merely one holding the office of presbyter, for then the phrase |the elder| would have no meaning. What remains but that the second John had the same right to the title as Andrew, Peter, and the rest to whom it is given in the beginning of the sentence?

Hence while we own the Eusebian interpretation of Papias to be a possible one, we are unable to see that it is the only possible one; and therefore while willing to receive the hypothesis of two Johns, if it will help to explain any difficulty, we do not think the evidence strong enough to establish it as an historical fact: and we frankly own that if it were not for deference to better judges, we should unite with Keim in relegating, though in a different way, this |Doppelgänger| of the apostle to the region of ghostland.

[G.S.]

Joannes (504), abbat of Mt. Sinai
Joannes (504), surnamed Climacus, Scholasticus, or Sinaita. At the age of 16 he entered the monastery of Mount Sinai, subsequently became an anchoret, and at 75 abbat of Mount. Sinai. At the entreaty of John abbat of Raïthu he now composed his works, the Scala Paradisi and the Liber ad Pastorem; from the title (klimax) of the first of these he gained his name of Climacus (Climakos). It contains his experiences in the spiritual life, with instructions for the attainment of a higher degree of holiness, and is dedicated to the abbat of Raïthu who afterwards wrote a commentary upon it (Patr. Gk.
lxxxviii.1211-1248). Returning into solitude, John died at an advanced age early in the 7th cent. Boll: Acta SS. Mart. iii.834: Migne, u.s.631-1210; a new ed. of the Gk. text of his works was pub. in 1883 at Constantinople by Sophronius Eremites; Surius, de Probatis Sanct. Historiis, Mar.30.

[I.G.S.]

Joannes (507) Saba, orthodox monk of Dilaita
Joannes (507) Saba, a native of Nineveh, fl. in 6th cent.; an orthodox monk of Dilaita or Daliatha, a small town on the W. bank of the Euphrates. His works are 30 discourses and 48 epistles, of which Syriac and Arabic MSS. exist in the Roman libraries. Though abounding in digressions, the style is marked by persuasive eloquence. They are headed |on the divine gifts and spiritual solaces vouchsafed to monks for their comfort and delight.| Assem. Bib. Or. i.433-444 iii. i.103, 4; Bickell, Cons. Syr. p.26.

[C.J.B.]

Joannes (509), monk
Joannes (509), called of Bêth-Rabbân or Bêthnarsi, disciple and successor in the 6th cent. of Jacobus the founder of the monastery of Bêth-Haba. Jesujab, bp. of Nineveh, stated that Joannes had been a monk 70 years before his departure from Bêth-Haba; 30 years he had lived as a solitary, 40 with Jacobus as a coenobite. Joannes was for some time in the monastery of Bêth-Rabbân, which was subject to the same abbat as Bêth-Haba. Ebedjesu (ap. Assem. Bibl. Or. III. i.72) states that he wrote a commentary on Ex., Lev., Num., Job, Jer., Ezk., and Prov., also certain tracts against Magi, Jews, and heretics. He also wrote prayers for Rogation days, a prayer on the death of Chosroes I. (d.579), and on a plague which befel Nisibis, besides paracletic addresses for each order in the church (i.e. metrical discourses read in the office of the dead), a book of questions relating to O. and N. T., psalms, hymns, and chants. One of his hymns is in the Mosul Breviary, p.61, and in a MS. in the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Cat. p.135). Rosen and Forshall (Cat. MSS. xii.3 n.) mention another hymn of his. Cf. also Lelong, Bibl. Sacr. ii.794.

[C.J.B.]

Joannes (520), monk and author
Joannes (520), surnamed Moschus and Eucratas (also Everatas and Eviratus, corruptions of Eucratas as Fabricius remarks), a monk, author of Pratum Spirituale, c.620. The materials of his Life are to be collected from his book (which exhibits no historical arrangement), a brief notice by Photius (Cod.199) and a Greek Vatican MS. of which Migne has printed a Latin version entitled Elogium Auctoris. This document extends the chronological material, and purports to have been composed while the Laura of St. Sabas in Palestine was standing.

Photius states that Moschus commenced the recluse life in the monastery of St. Theodosius, perhaps c.575. In the Pratum Moschus is found at two monasteries named after two Theodosii, near Antioch and Jerusalem respectively. The one intended by Photius is a Laura founded c.451 by the younger St. Theodosius a little E. of Jerusalem (Boll. Acta SS. Jan. i.683). The Pratum (c.92) shews Moschus at this spot, described as |in the desert of the holy city,| Gregory being archimandrite. In the reign of Tiberius (Prat.112) John Moschus was sent by his superior on monastic business with a companion, Sophronius Sophista (said to have been afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem), to Egypt and Oasis. This circumstance, unnoticed by Photius, is assigned by the Elogium to the beginning of the reign of Tiberius (i.e.578). The absence was perhaps temporary, and Moschus's more protracted wanderings in Egypt may be assigned to a much later day. His Palestine life lasted more than 25 years, and Sophronius Sophista is frequently mentioned as his companion, once with a remark that it was |before he renounced the world.| Photius states that he began monastic life at St. Theodosius, he afterwards resided with the monks of the Jordan desert and in the new laura of St. Sabas. The Pratum fills up this outline. The laura of Pharon (Pharon [acute accent on the alpha], Pharon [circumflex accent on the omega], Phara, Pharan in the Latin version) was his residence for ten years (40). It was within burying distance of Jerusalem (42), and near the laura of Calamon and that of the Towers of Jordan (40). The laura of Calamon where Moschus visited was near Jordan (157, 163). Another ten years (67) he resided at the laura of Aeliotae. This also was near Jordan (134) and still under the rule of its founder Antonius (66). Moschus was at Jerusalem at the consecration of the patriarch Amos (149), probably therefore A.D.594 (Le Quien, Or. Chr. iii.246); he records having ascended from |holy Gethsemane| to the |holy mount of Olives| (187). He resided at the laura of St. Sabas, called New Laura (3,128) near the Dead Sea (53), and a few miles E. of St. Theodosius (Boll. u.s.). He visited the mone of the eunuchs near |holy Jordan| (135-137), the xenodochium of the fathers at Ascalon (189), and Scythopolis (50). That he held the office of a kanonarchos is a mistake of Fabricius, citing Prat.50, where it is a narrator, not Moschus, who thus describes himself. >From the wilderness of Jordan and the New Laura, says Photius, John went to Antioch and its neighbourhood, the Elogium adding that this occurred when the Persians attacked the Romans because of the murder (Nov.27, 602) of the emperor Maurice and his children. In 603 Chosroes declared war against Phocas. The Pratum shews Moschus at Antioch or Theopolis (88, 89) and at Seleucia while Theodorus was bp. (79); but as this bp. is not otherwise known we get no date (Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii.780). He visited the monasterion (also mone) of the elder St. Theodosius, on the Rhosicus Scopulus, a mountain promontory between Rhosus in the gulf of Issus and Seleucia (80-86, 95, 99). At a village six miles from Rhosus, in the seventh indiction (i.e. between Sept.1, 604, and Aug.31, 605), he heard the story of Joannes Humilis. From those parts, says Photius, he went to Alexandria and Oasis and the neighbouring deserts. This was his principal visit to Egypt, the only one noticed by Photius and the most prominent one in the Elogium, which states his reason for leaving Syria to have been the invasion of the empire by the Persians, i.e. when Chosroes overran N. Syria in and after 605 (as detailed by Rawlinson, Seventh Monarchy, 501, 502). At Alexandria Moschus remained eight years (as the Latin version renders nronous hokto, Prat.13 fin.) in the monasterion of Palladius (69-73). The names of monastic localities in and about Alexandria occur in Prat.60, 105, 110, 111, 145, 146, 162, 177, 184, 195. There are recorded also visits to the Thebaid cities of Antinous and Lycus (44, 143, 161), to the laura of Raythu (115, 116, 119) on the Red Sea shore (120, 121), and to Mount Sinai (122, 123). Photius states that from Egypt Moschus went to Rome, touching at some islands en route, and at Rome composed his book. What drove him from Egypt appears in the Elogium. The holy places had fallen into the hands of the: enemy and the subjects of the empire were terror-stricken. This again assists the chronology; for as the Persians obtained possession of Jerusalem in 615 and in 616 advanced from Palestine and took Alexandria (Rawl.503, 504), the rumour of their approach would cause the retirement of Moschus in one of those years. The Pratum (185) records a visit to Samos. The Elogium relates how on his deathbed at Rome he delivered his book to Sophronius, requesting to be buried if possible at Mount Sinai or at the laura of St. Theodosius. Sophronius and 12 fellow-disciples sailed with the body to Palestine, but, hearing at Ascalon that Sinai was beset by Arabs, took it up to Jerusalem (in the beginning of the eighth indiction, e.g. c. Sept.1, 620) and buried it in the cemetery of St. Theodosius.

The work of Moschus consists of anecdotes and sayings collected in the various monasteries he visited, usually of eminent anchorets of his own time, as he states in his dedicatory address to Sophronius; but some whose stories were related belonged to an earlier period, e.g. John of Sapsas. The work is now distributed in 219 chapters, but was originally comprised, says Photius, in 304 narrations (diegemata). The discrepancy may be partly due to arrangement, as some chaps. (e.g.5, 55, 92, 95, 105) contain 2 or even 3 distinct narrations, introduced by the very word diegema. Moschus (To Sophron.) compares the character of his worthies to various flowers in a spring meadow, and names his work accordingly Leimon (Pratum). In the time of Photius some called it Neon Paradeision (Hortulus Novus), and it has since been named Viridarium, Neos Paradeisos (Novus Paradisus) and Leimonarion. The title Pratum Spirituale apparently originated with the first Latin translator, said by Possevinus to have been Ambrosias Camaldulensis (ob.1439) who translated numerous works of the Greek Fathers (Oudin. iii.2437). The Pratum in this version forms lib. x. of Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum (1615), which Migne reprinted in 1850 (Pat. Lat. lxxiv.), prefixing to the Pratum the Elogium Auctoris already described. In 1624 an incomplete Greek text made its appearance, accompanying the Latin, furnished by Fronto Ducaeus in vol. ii. of the Auctarium to the 4th ed. of La Bigne's Magna Bibliotheca Patrum. In La Bigne's ed. of 1654 it stands in vol. xiii. p.1057. In 1681 Cotelier (Eccles. Gr. Mon. ii.341) supplied more of the Greek and gave an independent Latin translation of some parts. In 1860 Migne (Pat. Gk. lxxxvii.2814) reprinted the thus augmented Greek, leaving a gap of only three chaps. (121, 122, 132), retaining the Latin of Ambrosias throughout. Other bibliographical particulars, including an account of the Italian and French versions, will be found in Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. x.124, ed. Harles). The authorship of the Pratum used sometimes to be attributed to Sophronius, in whose name it is cited by John of Damascus (de Imagin. orat. i.328, ii.344, iii.352 in Patr. Gk. xciv.1279, 1315, 1335) and likewise in actio iv. of the seventh synod in 787 (Mansi, xiii.59). John Moschus and his book are treated by Cave (i.581) and more fully by Ceillier (xi.700). Dupin gives an analysis of the Pratum for illustrations of church discipline (Eng. trans.1722, t. ii. p.11). Cf. S. Vailhé, St. Jean Mosch. in Echos d'orient, 1901.

[C.H.]

Joannes Philoponus, a distinguished philosopher
Joannes (564) Philoponus, a |grammaticus| of Alexandria; a distinguished philosopher, a voluminous writer (Suidas, s.v. Ioannes Tr.), and one of the leaders of the Tritheites of the 6th cent. (Sophron. Ep. Synodic. Co. Const. A.D.680; act. xi. in Mansi, xi.501; Leont. Byzant. de Sect. act. v. in Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. i.1232). From his great industry he acquired the surname of Philoponus. He was a native of Alexandria. His earliest known appearance as an author was in his peri a?diotetos, a reply to Proclus Diadochus. It shows great dialectic ability and learning, the quotations in it covering the whole range of the literature of his own and previous times (Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles, x.652-654), and is said by Suidas to have been a complete refutation of the great neo-Platonist and to have convicted him of gross ignorance (s. v. Proklos).

Apparently about the same time Philoponus was engaged in a controversy with Severus, the deposed bp. of Antioch (Suidas, s.v. Ioan; Galland. Bibl. Vet. Patr. xii.376; Cureton, Fragments, 212, 245 seq.). To the same period maybe assigned a treatise de Universali et Particulari, described by Assemani in his catalogue of Syriac MSS. (Bibl. Or. i.613).

At the request of Sergius (ordained patriarch of Antioch by the Monophysites c.540) Philoponus wrote his Diaitetes, Arbiter, the Umpire. It is an attempt to shew that the doctrine which he and his followers held upon the subject of the union of the two natures in the person of our Lord was dialectically necessary. The argument is admirably condensed by Prof. Dorner in his History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Clark's trans. ii. l.416).

At what period Philoponus distinctly avowed what is known as Tritheism (Eulog. Patr. Alex. Orat. Phot. ccxxx. ed. Schott. p.879) does not clearly appear, but it must have been before the middle of the 6th cent. as Mar Abas, |Primas Orientis| (d.552) was one of his converts to that doctrine (Assem. Bibl. Or. ii.411). Notwithstanding this, if not because of it, the emperor Justinian sent one of his officers named Stephanus to Alexandria to summon Philoponus to Constantinople |in causa fidei,| but he wrote excusing himself because of age and infirmity. In his letter he urged Justinian to issue an edict prohibiting the discussion of the |two natures.|

On the death of Joannes Ascusnaghes, the founder of the Tritheites, his Demonstrationes were sent to Philoponus at Alexandria. The latter then wrote a treatise on the subject and sent it to his friend at Constantinople. The Monophysites, finding that this publication brought them into great disrepute, appealed to the emperor Justin II., who had married Sophia, a granddaughter of the empress Theodora, and was known to be favourable to their party. He complied with their request, and the matter was committed to Joannes Scholasticus, who had succeeded Eutychius on his refusal to subscribe the Julianist edict of Justinian, A.D.565 (Greg. Bar-hebr.; Asseman. Bibl. Or. ii.328).

We hear no more of Philoponus until 568, when, John, patriarch of Constantinople, having delivered a catechetical discourse on the |Holy and consubstantial Trinity,| he published a treatise in reply to it. Photius is unsparing in his criticism of this work, charging the author with having perverted the authorities whom he quotes (Bibl. lxxv.). Philoponus must now have been very old, but apparently lived some years longer.

During his lifetime the Tritheites appear to have been united under his leadership (Tim. Presb. Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. i.62), but after his decease they became divided because of the opinions he had maintained on the
resurrection-body, both in his writings against the heathen and in a special work on this subject. This last was in several books, of which Photius speaks in no respectful terms (Bibl. xxi. xxiii.), though it found great favour with that section of the Monophysites which persevered in their adherence to Philoponus and with Eutychius the Catholic patriarch of Constantinople. [[321]EUTYCHIUS (18).] Those Tritheites who still followed him were distinguished as Philoponiaci, or Athanasiani because of Athanasius's prominence amongst them (Schonfelder, Die Tritheiten, app. to his German trans. of John of Ephesus, 269, 274, 297), while their opponents were called Cononitae, after Conon of Tarsus who wrote a reply to the Peri anastaseos.

Philoponus wrote numerous other works, many of them non-theological. His work de Aeternitate Mundi has been ed. by Rabe (Leipz.1899); his de Opificis Mundi by Reichardt (Leipz.1897), and a Libellus de Paschale by Walter (Jena 1899).

[T.W.D.]

Joannes Scythopolita, a scholasticus in Palestine
Joannes (565) Scythopolita, a scholasticus of Scythopolis in Palestine. Photius had read a work of his in 12 books, Against Separatists from the Church or Against Eutyches and Dioscorus, written at the request of a patriarch Julianus, probably Julian patriarch of Antioch, A.D.471-476 (Phot. Cod.95, in Patr. Gk. ciii.339 B). John of Scythopolis was also the author of paratheseis or commentaries on the Pseudo-Dionysius, which had a wide circulation for some centuries. Among the Syriac MSS. in the Brit. Mus. there is a Syriac trans. of Dionysius, with an introduction and notes by Phocas bar-Sergius of Edessa, a writer of the 8th cent. The notes are largely a translation of the paratheseis (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. pt. ii. p.493). Cf. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz. (1887).

[T.W.D.]

Jordanis, historian of the Goths
Jordanis (Jornandes, the Gothic name, on his becoming an ecclesiastic was changed to Jordanis, Wattenbach, p.62), historian of the Goths (and probably bp. of Crotona, in Brutium) in the middle of 6th cent.

I. Authorities. -- Grimm, Kleinere Schriften, iii.171, etc.; Ebert, Geschichte der Christlich Lat. Lit. (Dahn, 1875); Die Könige der Germanen, ii.243-260, for Jordanis's use of words of constitutional importance; Anekdoton Holderi (Hermann Usener, Bonn, 1877); and for other authorities, Wattenbach, p.55.

II. Writings. -- His only works of which we have certain knowledge are the de Breviatione Chronicorum (more commonly but wrongly called de Regnorum Successione) and the de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis.

(1) The de Breviatione Chronicorum (Muratori, Scriptores Rerum Ital. i.222-242) is a compendium of the history of the world, of little value, and only important as indicating the strong feeling of the Goth Jordanis that the power of the Roman empire was to last to the end of time.

(2) The de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis is one of the most important works written during the period of the Teutonic settlements in Western Europe. In amount of matter it may equal about 20 pages of this Dict. Its contents are most conveniently arranged under four heads (cf. Ebert. p.532).

1 (c. i.13). The work opens with a geographical account of the world and in particular of N. Europe and the island |Scandza.| Jordanis then identifies the Goths with the Scythians, whose country he describes, and praises their learning and bravery. He then recounts their wars with the Egyptians and Amazons, and, identifying the Goths with the Getae, describes the deeds of Telephus and Tomyris. Cyrus, Xerxes, Alexander the Great, Caesar and Tiberius are mentioned. With chap.18 he suddenly passes to the devastation of the banks of the Danube by the Goths and their victory over the Romans. He then pauses to give fuller details about the royal Gothic race of the Amali.

2 (c.14-23). He carries the genealogy of the Amali down to Mathasuentha, the granddaughter of Theodoric and widow of Vitigis, who had just married, as he tells us, Germanus brother of Justinian. He then returns to the Goths and their movement into Moesia and Thracia. Claiming for the emperor Maximus a Gothic father, he thus raises the Goths to high honour. The deeds of Ostrogotha are then related, the victory over the Gepidae, the expeditions to Asia Minor, and Geberich's conquest of the Vandals. After Geberich came Hermanaric conqueror of the Heneti and many other tribes.

3 (c.24-47). This division begins with an account of the Huns, their victory over the Goths, and the death of Hermanaric. He traces the separation of the Visigoths from the Ostrogoths, and follows their history. He shortly recounts Alaric's invasion of Italy, and introduces the story of Attila's invasion of Gaul and defeat. The battle of Châlons is described at considerable length. At the close of the section he describes the subjugation of Italy by Odoacer and the deposition of Augustulus.

4 (c.48-60). Jordanis now returns to the Ostrogoths, once more mentions the defeat of Hermanaric, and this leads him to speak of the death of Attila. He describes the movement of the Ostrogoths into Pannonia, the reign of Theodemir and the birth of Theodoric. The dealings of Theodoric with Zeno, his entrance into Italy and his victory over Odoacer are recounted. The outline of the fortunes of the Goths in Italy is related very briefly, and the work closes with the captivity of Vitigis, and another mention of the marriage of Mathasuentha with Germanus.

His own words in the dedication of the de Getarum Origine or History of the Goths, convey an impression that he had written an abstract from memory of a three days' reading of the History of the Goths by Cassiodorius, adding extracts of his own from Latin and Greek writers, and that the beginning, middle, and end of the work were his own composition. It might certainly have been supposed that the preface at least was the composition of Jordanis himself. But the most convincing evidence of the writer's want of originality has been shewn by the discovery made by Von Sybel with reference to this preface (Schmidt, Zeitschrift für Geschichte, vii.288). It is largely a literal copy of the introduction by Rufinus to his trans. of Origen's Comm. on Romans.

If the general view of the History of the Goths by Jordanis, first propounded by Schirren, and afterwards worked out by Köpke, Bessel, and others, be true, the place of Jordanis as a historian is but low. He does not acknowledge several authorities whom he largely uses and displays an array of authorities whom he only knows at second-hand. But it must be remembered that Jordanis does not claim originality, except under the clause in the preface (|initium finemque et plura in medio mea dictione permiscens|). The substratum of the whole work must still be ascribed to Cassiodorius. Is it, then, possible to disentangle the work of Cassiodorius from the setting in which Jordanis has placed it? A complete separation can, from the circumstances of the case, hardly be possible. Yet we may be tolerably sure that, though many of the extracts bear the traces of the treatment and colouring of Jordanis, enough remains of the lost work to bring us in to close contact with the mind and words of Cassiodorius, and, to a certain extent, to enable us to understand his purpose in his great work.

The history of the Goths was certainly completed before the death of Athalaric in 534 (Variae, ix.25); Köpke and others suppose c.533. Since the discovery of the Anekdoton Holderi, however, it has become practically certain that the Gothic History of Cassiodorius was composed some years before 533; probably not later than 521.

In two passages of his Variae Cassiodorius refers to his Gothic History. By far the more important passage, of which nearly every word helps to shew his purpose, is in ix.25, where Cassiodorius describes his History in a letter addressed nominally by king Athalaric to the senate in 534.

Cassiodorius clearly shews that his primary object was not literary, but political. He saw the growing antagonism between Goths and Romans and Theodoric's efforts to lessen it. He saw the king trying to combine the old and the new elements and to form a kingdom in which both could live with mutual respect. He determined to assist by his writing his master's plans. He would try to draw the Goths and Romans together by shewing that both nations were alike honourable for the antiquity of their race and the glory of their history. He would tell the Goths of the greatness of the Roman empire, with whom they fought in ancient days, and would shew the Romans that the kingly family of the Amali was as noble as any Roman house. No one was better fitted than he to write a history of the Goths. His real knowledge of ancient writers, his constant opportunities of converse with the king and Gothic nobles, his father's share and his own in all the later or contemporary events, provided him with ample material. In the earlier part of the work we can clearly see from Jordanis how the political theory of Cassiodorius was worked out. He adopted the belief that the Getae and the Goths were the same nation. Further, he accepted the identity of the Goths with the Scythians, a theory stated by several Greek writers. Thus the Goths were brought into contact or conflict with the great nations of antiquity and even the Amazons appear as Gothic women. Yet even with all the notices he could collect from Greek or Roman authorities and the stories and sagas he heard at the court of Ravenna, his stock of accurate information about the early history of the Goths cannot have been large. The very theory with which he wrote shews that much must be accepted with reserve.

Thirty years later the Gothic bishop, in his adaptation of the work, shewed that he rested his hopes of the future quite as much on the Roman empire as on the Gothic race itself. However little individuality as a historian Jordanis may have had, it lay with him to choose and adapt his extracts from Cassiodorius in accordance with his own feelings, and there is enough of himself in the work to enable us to catch something of his spirit. For him the end of the great struggle between Goths and Romans had come; the war between Totila and Belisarius, or Narses, which was yet going on, had no supreme interest. The race of the Amali, with which he was connected and on which all his hopes were centred, had ceased to rule the Goths. His desires for the future rested rather on the union of the brother of the emperor with the granddaughter of Theodoric than on the issue of a struggle which he probably and rightly thought hopeless. His Catholic sympathies, rejecting the idea of an Arian ruler, and his family pride, alike contributed to this result. Three times he alludes to the marriage of Mathasuentha, widow of Vitigis (with whom she had been brought captive to Constantinople), to Germanus, brother of the emperor Justinian (cc.14, 48, 60). In c.60 he tells how Germanus died, leaving an infant son: |Item Germanus: in quo conjuncta Aniciorum gens cum Amala stirpe spem adhuc utriusque generis Domino praestante promittit.|

Jordanis was the first since Tacitus to treat the history of the Teutonic nations from their side. The eternity of the Roman empire had impressed itself on the mind of Jordanis. The idea, therefore, that the Goths were equally learned and ancient must have been a support to him (and others like him) when Theodoric was ruling almost as a miniature emperor in Italy. But the thought of a union between the imperial family and the Amali could alone satisfactorily reconcile his hopes for the great family to which he belonged and his belief in the church and empire of Rome. This traditional belief in the empire and church was destined never to be altogether broken in Italy. After two centuries of struggles between rival principles in church and state the next Italian ecclesiastic who attained importance as a historian, Paulus Diaconus, himself, like Jordanis, of Teutonic race, was able to witness the return of imperial power of old Rome and to have friendly intercourse with the new Teutonic emperor. To Jordanis the first Teutonic historian of a Teutonic race such a possibility was unknown, and he could only fix fruitless hopes on a union of the Greek and the Goth to solve his difficulties. For the spirit of the age and times which we thus seem to gather from Jordanis's work we owe him a debt of gratitude, and also for his preservation, if only in a broken form, of fragments from the greatest work of Theodoric's great secretary.

The most important editions of the History of the Goths are: Muratori, Scriptores Rev. Ital. i.189-241 (Medial.1723). Migne, Patr. Cursus, lxix. Appendix to works of Cassiodorius. Jordanis, de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis, ed. C. A. Closs (Stuttg.1861). In the Monumenta Germaniae the two works of Jordanis are undertaken by Mommsen himself. Neues Archiv. D. G. F. ältere Deutschen Geschichtskunde, ii.5.

III. Life. -- Jordanis tells us that his grandfather was notary to Candac, chief of the Alani in Moesia, that he himself was a notary before becoming an ecclesiastic, that he was of the Gothic race and apparently connected with the royal family of the Amali. We know from his own writings no more, and nothing further can be absolutely certain. But a discovery, first made by Cassel, has led to an extremely important and very highly probable conjecture about his identity. The name of one Jordanes Crotonensis, bp. of Crotona (now Cotrone) in Bruttium is found, with those of several other bishops, appended to a document sometimes called the Damnatio Theodori, issued by pope Vigilius in Aug.551 at Constantinople. If this should be our Jordanis, it becomes exceedingly probable that the Vigilius to whom the Chronicle of Jordanis is dedicated and sent, along with the History of the Goths, is pope Vigilius. Vigilius was pope from 537 to 555. He had been made pope by the influence of Belisarius at Rome, at the request of the empress Theodora. After the issue of the Three Chapters by Justinian, which Vigilius apparently dared not sign when in Italy, the pope was summoned to Constantinople, which he reached on Christmas Day, 547. He was retained at Constantinople, or in the neighbourhood, for seven years, till he at last obtained permission from Justinian to return to Italy. At Constantinople he was much persecuted by the emperor and his party, who tried to force him to sign a confession of faith in accordance with their views. He was bold enough to excommunicate the bp. of Caesarea, and then, fearing the emperor's wrath, took sanctuary in the basilica of St. Peter in Constantinople. While in this church with his companions, and, among others, several Italian bishops, he issued (Aug.551) the document in which the name of Jordanes, bp. of Cotrona, is found.

Several considerations make it exceedingly probable that Jordanis wrote his work at Constantinople. His almost complete ignorance of the later and contemporary events in Italy is thus explained, and his detailed acquaintance, shewn in several passages, with the affairs of the empire accounted for.

The bp. of Cotrona lived not far from the monastery in Bruttium (monasterium Vivariense) to which Cassiodorius had retired after his active life as a statesman. Here Jordanis first saw the 12 books of the Gothic history, and was allowed by the steward of Cassiodorius a second perusal of the work. When he was, as we presume, with the pope in Constantinople he was suddenly called upon to write his Gothic history, and, as he tells us, had to make the best of what materials he had at hand or could remember. The de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis was the result.

[A.H.D.A.]

Josephus, catholicos of Armenia
Josephus (2), catholicos of Armenia (Le Quien, Or. Christ. i.1079). St. Martin (Mém. sur l'Arm. i.437) places him between Mesrob and Melidé, giving his dates as 441-452, but these figures do not represent his place in the series accurately. The Persian king contemporary with him was Isdigerd II., and the governor of Armenia was an Armenian Christian Vasag, prince of the Siounians (442-452). Joseph was one of the band of Armenian scholars trained under Mesrob and Isaac the Great and afterwards in the schools of Athens and Constantinople. [[322]MESROBES.] He returned to Armenia probably c.434. His patriarchate occurred at a most critical period, when Isdigerd II. was endeavouring to supplant the Christianity of Armenia by Zoroastrianism. For a full contemporary account of this see Elisha Vartabed's Hist. of Vartan, trans. from the Armenian by Neumann and Langlois. Isdigerd issued a proclamation to the Armenians -- one of the utmost valuable ancient Zoroastrian documents we possess. A reply was issued in 450 by a synod of 17 bishops held at Ardashad. The name of Joseph, bp. of Ararat, heads the subscriptions (Neum.13, 14, 87), the province of Ararat being one of 15 into which Armenia was divided. This seems Joseph's first appearance in these events. The reply is given in full by Elisha; for the spirit of it see ISDIGERD II. Exasperated by that bold manifesto, the king ordered the leading Armenian princes to appear before him, and they, depositing a confession of their faith with Joseph, obeyed (ib.21). In the royal capital on the feast of Easter, 450, they were summoned into the king's presence, and peremptorily ordered to adore the sun on its rising the next day. Finding Isdigerd inexorable, they feigned compliance, and Isdigerd, accepting the act as a formal submission of their country, sent them home accompanied by a band of magi, who, supported by a large military force, were to instruct the Armenians in the Zoroastrian religion and laws. On the appearance of this armed mission the bishops went among their flocks exhorting them to resist. The people were resolved, and a Holy League was formed. On behalf of his distressed country Joseph appealed to the emperor Theodosius II., but shortly afterwards (July 28, 450) Theodosius died, and Marcian his successor would not help (ib.36, 37). The Armenian Christians nevertheless assembled in arms, 60,000 in number, among them Joseph, Leontius the priest, many other priests and a multitude of deacons. On June 2, 451, at the Dekhmud, a tributary of the Araxes (St. Martin, i.41), led by their prince Vartan they were disastrously defeated (Neum.51). A fortress where the priests had taken refuge fell. Joseph and Leontius, when about to be put to death, asked to be sent to the king, hoping to make terms for their people. They were sent, but would not waver in their steadfastness (ib.63, 66). Thus much Elisha relates of Joseph in his 7th chap., his last as Neumann believes. In an 8th chap. added by Langlois in 1867, and in another Armenian writer, Lazarus of Barb (c.48 in Langlois, ii.315), it is stated that in the 6th year of Isdigerd (i.e.455) and on the 25th of the month Hroditz, the patriarch Joseph, Sahag, bp. of Reschdouni, the priests Arsenius, Leontius, Mousché, and the deacon Kadchadch were executed in the province of Abar, near Révan, a village of the Moks. Lazarus (l.c.) records his dying words. On the position of Abar see Langlois (t. ii. p.186, note 1), and Neumann (p.77, note 18). [[324]LEONTIUS (74).]

[G.T.S.]

Joshua (1) Stylites, a Syrian monk
Joshua (1) Stylites, a Syrian monk; a native of Edessa, entered the monastery of Zuenin near Amida in Mesopotamia. After some years he determined to imitate St. Simeon and live the rest of his days on a column, from which he derives his distinguishing name. Before this he had written in 507 the history of his times from 495, entitled, History of the Calamities which befel Edessa, Amida, and all Mesopotamia. A full description, with quotations from the original Syriac, is given by Assemani (Bibl. Or. i.260). It was published at Leipzig in 1878, in the Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, in the original Syriac, with a French trans. by Abbé Paulin Martin. The translator describes it as the most ancient history extant in Syriac, and specially valuable because of Joshua's personal share in the events. His text corrects many omissions and mistakes in Assemani's abstract. He fixes its composition between 510-515, and classes Joshua as a Monophysite, while Assemani regarded him as orthodox.

[I.G.S. AND G.T.S.]

Jovianus Flavius, Christian emperor
Jovianus (1), Flavius, Christian emperor from June 27, 363, to Feb.16, 364. The authorities for the Life of Jovian are generally the same as those for that of Julian. The fifth oration of Themistius, and certain tracts printed among the works of St. Athanasius, are important for the special points of his edict of toleration and dealings with the Arians. There is a useful Life of Jovian by the Abbé J. P. R. de la Bléterie (Paris, 1748, 2 vols., and 1776, 1 vol.), containing also a translation of some of Julian's works.

Life. -- Jovian was born c. A.D.331. His father, the count Varronianus, was an inhabitant of the territory of Singidunum (Belgrade) in Moesia, the country which gave birth to so many emperors (Victor, Epit.68). At the time of his unexpected elevation he was the first of the imperial bodyguard, a position of no very great distinction (Amm. xxv.5, 4).

Julian died of a wound at midnight, between June 26 and 27, 363, in the midst of his retreat from Persia, leaving his army surrounded by active enemies. Early in the morning the generals and chief officers met to choose an emperor. Saturninus Secundus Sallustius, the prefect of the East, a moderate heathen, who was respected also by Christians, was elected; but he refused the dangerous honour, and Jovian was chosen.

The new emperor was a Christian and a firm adherent of the Nicene faith. He had, indeed, some claim to the honours of a confessor under his predecessor, but Julian, it is said, did not wish to part with so good an officer (Socr. iii.22). He was in other respects a man of no very marked ability (Amm. xxv.5, 4; Eutropius, x.17). He was a generous, bluff, and hearty soldier, popular with his companions, fond of jest and merriment, and addicted to the pleasures common in the camp (Vict. Epit.6; Amm. xxv.10, 15). He had a bright and open face, always cheerful, and lighted with a pair of clear grey eyes. His figure was extremely tall and his gait rather heavy, and it was long before an imperial wreath could be found to fit him. He was only a moderate scholar, and in this and many other points was a strong contrast to Julian (Amm. l.c.).

Though he was a sincere believer, we cannot credit the statement of Rufinus that he would not accept the empire till he had obliged all his soldiers to become Christians (H. E. ii.1). But the greater part of the army did, no doubt, return without difficulty to the profession of faith to which they had been accustomed under Constantius. The labarum again became their standard; and Jovian's coins present, besides the , the new and striking type (now so familiar) of the ball surmounted by the cross, the symbol of the church dominating the world (see Eckhel, Num. Vet. viii. p.147). Ammianus notes that sacrifices were offered, and entrails of victims inspected on the morning of Jovian's inauguration to decide on the movements of the army (xxv.6, 1). But directly the reins of power were in his hands such things apparently ceased at once.

We need not describe at length the perplexities of the Roman generals in their endeavours to escape from Persia, and the protracted negotiations with Sapor, to whose terms Jovian felt it imperative to submit (Eutrop. Brev. x.17; Amm. xxv.7, 8). The terms were ignoble and humiliating: the cession of the five Mesopotamian provinces which Galerius had added to the Roman dominions, and of the fortresses of Nisibis and Singara, the former of which had been the bulwark of the empire since the reign of Mithridates. No less disgraceful was the sacrifice of Arsaces, king of Armenia, the firm ally of the Romans and a Christian prince, allied to the house of Constantine by his marriage with Olympias (Amm. ib.9-12; cf. Greg. Naz. Or. v.15). But probably no better terms could have been obtained without the loss of nearly all the army.

After crossing the Tigris with difficulty, the Roman forces marched for six days through very desert country to the fortress of Ur, where they were met by a convoy of provisions (Amm. xxv.8, 16). The scenes at Nisibis were heartrending when the inhabitants were bidden leave their homes. Jovian, however, was firm (xxv.9, 2). The Persian standard was hoisted on the citadel, in token of the change of ownership and the weeping and broken-hearted people were settled in the suburb of Amida. The emperor proceeded to Antioch. The remains of Julian were sent to be buried at Tarsus, where he had intended to reside on his return from the Persian war.

The consternation of the pagans at the news of the death of Julian and the accession of Jovian was as sudden and as marvellous as the triumph of the Christians. All Antioch made holiday, churches, chapels, and even theatres being filled with cries of joy, and taunts at the discomfiture of the heathen party. |Where are the prophecies and foolish Maximus? God has conquered and His Christ| (Theod. iii.28). St. Gregory was writing his bitter and brilliant invectives at Nazianzus, where but a few months before the Christian population had trembled at the approach of Julian (Orat. iv. and v., the steliteutikoi; they were probably not delivered from the pulpit; see p.75 of the Benedictine ed. Paris, 1778). Some acts of violence were committed, especially in the destruction of temples and altars, and more were apprehended. At Constantinople a prefect of Julian's appointment was in danger of his life (Sievers, Libanius, p.128; cf. Lib. Epp.1179, 1186, 1489). Heathen priests, philosophers, rhetoricians, and magicians hid themselves in fear, or were maltreated by the populace. Libanius himself was in peril at Babylon, and was accused before Jovian of never ceasing his ill-omened lamentations for his dead friend, instead of wishing good fortune to the new reign (Liban. de Vitâ suâ, vol. i. pp.93, 94, ed. Reiske; cf. Sievers, Libanius, pp.128 ff.; Chastel, Destruction du Paganisme, pp.154, 155, who, however, is not accurate in all details). Libanius was saved by the intervention of a Cappadocian friend, who told the emperor that he would gain nothing by putting him to death, as his orations would survive him and become current. This looks as if his Monody was already written and known at least by report, though probably only delivered to a select circle of friends. The Epitaphius was probably not completed and published till five or six years later (Sievers, p.132).

To appease this disturbed state of feeling Jovian issued an edict that all his subjects should enjoy full liberty of conscience, though he forbade the practice of magic (Themistis Oratio, v. pp.68-70; cf. Chastel, p.156). This was probably one of the earliest of his laws. It is impossible to reconcile the positive statements of Themistius with that of Sozomen, that Jovian ordered that Christianity should be the only religion of his subjects (Soz. vi.3); and Socrates, who quotes the oration of Themistius, says that all the temples were shut, and that the blood of sacrifices ceased to flow (iii.24). Jovian may very probably have strongly recommended the Christian faith in his edicts without pretending to enforce it, and the cessation of sacrifice seems to have been a popular rather than a directly imperial movement (the passage in Libanius's Monodia, vol. i. p.509, appears to refer to Constantius rather than Jovian; and that in the Epitaphius, pp.619, 620, was probably written later). Jovian allowed the philosophers Maximus and Prisan, the intimate friends of Julian, to enjoy the honours they had received during Julian's reign (Eus. Vita Maximi, p.58, ed. Boissonade, 1822).

The reaction under Jovian, so far as it was directed by his orders, consisted rather in favours granted to Christians than in acts of oppression towards paganism. The edict of toleration was perhaps issued at Antioch, which he reached some time in Oct., having been at Edessa on Sept.27 (Cod. Theod. vii.4, 9 = Cod. Just. xii.37, 2; it is omitted by accident in Hänel's Series Chronologia, p.1654, but is given by Godefroy and Kruger). He restored the immunities of the clergy, and the stipends paid to the virgins and widows of the church, and such part of the allowance of corn which Julian had withdrawn as the state of public finances allowed (Soz. vi.3; Theod. i.11, iv.4). A count named Magnus, who had burned the church of Berytus in the late reign, was ordered to rebuild it, and nearly lost his head (Theod. iv.22, p.180 B). At the same time probably Jovian issued a law condemning to death those who solicited or forced into marriage the virgins of the church (Cod. Theod. ix.25, 2, this law is addressed to Secundus, prefect of the East, and is dated at Antioch, Feb.19, a day or two after Jovian's death according to most accounts. Either we must read Ancyrae or suppose the month wrongly given, see the commentators ad loc.).

Jovian is remembered in church history on account of his connexion with St. Athanasius more than any other of his actions. The death of Julian was, it is said, revealed to his companion Theodore of Tabenne, and the bishop took courage to return to Alexandria. Here he received a letter from the new emperor praising him for his constancy under all persecutions, reinstating him in his functions, and desiring his prayers (Athan. Op. i.622 = vol. ii. col.812, ed. Migne). Jovian in another letter (no longer extant) desired him to draw up a statement of the Catholic faith. He accordingly summoned a council, and wrote a synodal letter, stating and confirming the Nicene Creed (l.c. and Theod. iv.3). Armed with this, he set sail for Antioch (Sept.5, 363), where he met with a most gracious reception. The leaders of other ecclesiastical parties had been able to gain little beyond expressions of the emperor's desire for unity and toleration. The Arians, and especially bp. Lucius, who had been set up as a rival of Athanasius, followed Jovian about in his daily rides in hopes of prejudicing him against the champion of Catholicity (l.c. pp.624, 625 = vol. ii. col.819 ff.). The bluff emperor reining up his steed to receive their petitions, and his rough and sensible answers mixed with Latin words to their old and worn-out charges and irrelevant pleas, stand out with singular vividness. We can almost hear him saying, |Feri, feri,| to his guard, in order to be rid of his troublesome suitors.

Little seems to have been effected by Athanasius with the Arians at Antioch, and Jovian was disappointed in his endeavour to terminate the schism between the Catholic bps. Meletius and Paulinus (Basil, Ep.89, vol. iii. p.258, ed. Gaume). A coldness ensued between Meletius and Athanasius, and the latter was led to recognize the bishop of the Eustathians as the true head of the Antiochene church on his making a declaration of orthodoxy. Soon after this he returned in triumph to Alexandria.

Jovian quitted Antioch in Dec., and came by forced marches to Tarsus, where he adorned the tomb of Julian. At Tyana, in Cappadocia, he received the news that Malarich had declined the charge of Gaul, and that Jovinus still continued in his own position, but faithful to the new regime. Jovian also learned that his father-in-law Lucillianus had been murdered at Rheims in an accidental mutiny of the Batavian cohorts (Amm. xxv.10; Zos. iii.35). The deputies of the Western armies saluted their new sovereign as he descended from Mount Taurus. With them was Valentinian, so soon to be his successor, whom he appointed captain of the second division of scutarii (Amin. xxv.10, 9).

Another and a heavier blow followed -- the news of the loss of his father Varronianus, whom he had for some time hoped to associate with himself in the consulship of the ensuing year. The loss was softened by the arrival of his wife Charito and infant son Varronianus, who, it was determined, should fill the place destined for his grandfather. The inauguration of the new consuls took place on Jan.1 at Ancyra (Amm. xxv.10, 11; cf. Themist. Or. v. p.71). Zonaras (Annal. xiii.14) says that Charito never saw her husband after his elevation, but this seems a mistake (see De Broglie, iv. p.485 n.). The oration of Themistius was, it seems, delivered at this time.

Jovian still pushed on, notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather, and arrived at an obscure place called Dadastané, about halfway between Ancyra and Nicaea. About Feb.16, after a heavy supper, he went to bed in an apartment recently built. The plaster being still damp, a brazier of charcoal was brought in to warm the air, and in the morning he was found dead in his bed, after a short reign of only 8 months. (Amm. xxv.10, 12, 13, describes his death; the date is variously given as Mar.16, 17, and 18; see Clinton.) He was buried at Constantinople, and after 10 days' interval Valentinian succeeded.

Owing to the shortness of Jovian's reign, inscriptions relating to him (other than those on milestones) are very rare, but there is one over the portal of the church of Panaghia at Palaeopolis in Corfu. It may be found in the Corpus Inscr. Graec. vol. iv.8608, from various authorities, and was also copied on the spot by bp. Wordsworth of Lincoln in 1832, who alone gives the first line: |aute pule tou kuriou dikeoi eiseleusonte [i.e. dikaioi eiseleusontai] en aute.

[J.W.]

Jovinianus, heretic
Jovinianus (2), condemned as a heretic by synods at Rome and Milan c.390. Our fullest information about him is derived from St. Jerome, who wrote two books, adversus Jovinianum. From these we learn that he had been a monk, living austerely, but adopted certain views which led him to substitute luxury in dress and personal habits and food for the asceticism of the convent, the opinions ascribed to him by Jerome being: (1) A virgin is no better as such than a wife in the sight of God. (2) Abstinence is no better than a thankful partaking of food. (3) A person baptized with the Spirit as well as with water cannot sin. (4) All sins are equal. (5) There is but one grade of punishment and one of reward in the future world. We learn further from St. Augustine (lib. i. contra Julian. c. ii.), and from the letter of the Milanese synod to Siricius (Ambros. Op. Ep.42), that Jovinian maintained tenets as to the Virgin Mary's virginity in giving birth to Jesus Christ in opposition to the orthodox view. He was living at Rome (Hieron. Prolog. adv. Pelag.), and wrote in Latin (ib. lib. ii. adv. Jovin. § 37). Certain Christians at Rome, amongst them Jerome's correspondent Pammachius, brought the book to the notice of Siricius, bp. of Rome, who called a meeting of his clergy and condemned the new heresy. Hoping for protection from Theodosius, who was now at Milan, Jovinian and his friends proceeded thither; but Siricius sent three of his presbyters with a letter of warning to the church at Milan. Ambrose responded warmly to Siricius, and with eight other bishops endorsed the sentence passed by the Roman church. In a letter by Ambrose in the name of the synod of Milan to Siricius conveying this judgment, it is stated that the emperor |execrated| the impiety of the Jovinianists, and that all at Milan who had seen them shunned them like a contagion. In 409 Jerome, writing against Vigilantius, refers to Jovinian as having recently died.

The heresies of Jovinian would be especially obnoxious to the great ecclesiastics of his time, who were wont to insist strongly upon the merit of virginity and of abstinence. Jerome writes against Jovinian, he says, in answer to an appeal made by holy brethren at Rome who desired that he should crush the Epicurus of the Christians with evangelical and apostolic vigour. The vigour of the reply was a little too much even for them (quod nimius fuerim). His praise of virginity seemed to do some wrong to marriage. Accordingly Pammachius (prudenter et amanter, as Jerome acknowledges) thought it best to suppress the copies of Jerome's answer. But the books had already circulated too much to be recalled. Whatever Jerome wrote was seized upon by friends or enemies, and quickly made public (Ep.48, 49). Jovinian is not accused of any worse immorality than an indulgence in good living, which was probably exaggerated rhetorically by Jerome. Augustine reproaches him with having led consecrated virgins of advanced age to accept husbands. He himself abstained from marriage, merely because of the troubles involved in it. See Hieron. lib. i. adv. Jov. § 3; August. de Haer. § 82, lib. ii. de Nupt. et Concep. § 23; Retract. lib. ii. § 23; also Haller, Jovinianus sein Leben und seine Lehre in Texte und Untersuch. xvii. new ser. (Leipz.1897).

[J.LL.D.]

Juliana, mother of the virgin Demetrias
Juliana (8), mother of the virgin DEMETRIAS, to whom we have letters from Jerome, Augustine, pope Innocent, and Pelagius. She was of noble birth, being connected through her mother Proba and her husband Olybrius with some of the greatest families of Rome, and was possessed of great wealth. When her daughter proposed to take vows of virginity, she refrained from influencing her; but when Demetrias appeared in the church clad in the dress of a virgin she shewed her great delight at this step. She supported the cause of Chrysostom at Rome and entertained his messengers. His thanks were conveyed in a letter from his place of exile (A.D.406), exhorting her to hold fast and aid in allaying the waves of controversy (Chrys. Ep.169). She fled with her daughter to Africa from Rome when it was sacked by Alaric, but fell into the rapacious hands of count Heraclion, who robbed her of half her property. She was commended to the African churches by pope Innocent in a laudatory letter (Ep.25), which takes the rank of a decree in the collection of papal rescripts by Dion. Exig. (Coll. Dec.39; Hieron. Ep.130, ed. Vall.). She became acquainted with Augustine while in Africa, and she and her daughter had relations with Pelagius, who wrote a long letter to Demetrias (given among the Supposititia of Jerome; ed. Vall. vol. xi.) vindicating free will by her example. Augustine, with Alypius, wrote to Juliana (Aug. Ep.188, A.D.418), arguing that all the virtues of Demetrias were from the grace of God.

[W.H.F.]

Julianus Eclanensis, bp. of Eclana
Julianus (15) (Eclanensis), bp. of Eclana or Aeculanum (Noris, ad Hist. Pelag. in Opp. iv.747, ed.1729-1732), near Beneventum (ib. i.18, in Opp. i.178; Pagi, Critic, s.a.419, ix.), a distinguished leader of the Peagians of 5th cent. A native of Apulia (August. Opus Imperf. vi.18 in Patr. Lat. xlv.1542), his birth is assigned to c.386 (Gainer, Diss. i. ad part. i. Opp. Mar. Merc. c.6, in Patr. Lat. xlviii.291). His father was an Italian bishop named Memor or Memorius (Mar. Merc. Subnot. iv.4, Garner's n. g. u.s. p.130; Pagi, u.s.; Cappelletti, Chies. Ital. xx.19) and his mother a noble lady named Juliana (Mar. Merc. u.s.). Augustine of Hippo was intimate with the family, and wrote of them in terms of great affection and respect, c.410 (Ep.101; Noris, Opp. i.422, iv.747). Julian, c.404, became a |lector| in the church over which his father presided, and while holding that office married a lay named Ia. Paulinus, afterwards bp. of Nola, composed an elaborate Epithalamium, which represents him as on terms of great intimacy with the family (Poem. xxv. in Pali. lii.633). By c.410 Julian had become a deacon, but whether Ia was then living does not appear.

He was consecrated to the episcopate by Innocent I. c.417 (Mar. Merc. Commonit. iii.2), but the name of his see is variously given. Marius Mercator, who was his contemporary, distinctly speaks of him as |Episcopus Eclanensis| (Nestor. Tract. praef. § 1, Migne, 184; Theod. Mops. praef. § 2, Migne, 1043). Innocent I. died Mar.12, 417. Up to that date Julian had maintained a high reputation for ability, learning, and orthodoxy, and Mercator concludes that he must have sympathized with Innocent's condemnation of the Pelagians (Commonit. iii.2). Yet there is reason to believe that even Innocent had ground for at least suspecting his proclivities (August, cont. Julian. i.13). When the cases of Pelagius and Coelestius were reopened by Zosimus, shortly after the death of Innocent, Julian seems to have expressed himself strongly in their favour in the hearing of Mercator (Subnot. vii.2; Noris, Opp. i.183); and when ZOSIMUS issued his Epistola Tractoria against the Pelagians (A.D.417; Jaffé, Reg. Pont. Rom.417) and sent it to the bishops of the East and West for subscription, Julian was among those who refused. He was accordingly deposed, and afterwards exiled under the edicts issued by the emperor Honorius in Mar.418 (Mar. Merc. Commonit. iii.1). Julian now addressed two letters to Zosimus (August. Op. Imp. i.18), one of which was very generally circulated throughout Italy before it reached the pontiff. Of this Mercator has preserved some fragments (Subnot. vi.10-13, ix.3). Of the other we have no remains (Pagi, Critic. A.D.418, lvii.).

About the same time Julian addressed a letter to Rufus, bp. of Thessalonica (410-431), on his own behalf and that of 18 fellow-recusants. Rufus was vicarius of the Roman see in Illyricum (Innocent's ep. to Rufus, June 17, 412, in Mansi, viii.751) and just then in serious collision with Atticus the patriarch of Constantinople. As Atticus was a strenuous opponent of the Pelagians (Noris, Opp. iv.884), Julian and his brethren perhaps thought Rufus might be persuaded to favour them (ib. i.201, 202). Zosimus died Dec.26, 418, and was succeeded by Boniface I., Apr.10, 419. The letter of Julian to Rufus, with another to the clergy of Rome which he denied to be his (August. Op. Imp. i.18), were answered by Augustine in his contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum. Julian avows an earnest desire to gain the aid of the Oriental bishops against the |profanity of Manicheans,| for so he styles the Catholics (cont. Duas. Ep. ii.1); accuses Zosimus of tergiverisation and the Roman clergy of having been unduly influenced in their condemnation of the Pelagians (ii.3); charges both with various heresies (ii.2-5); and protests that by their means the subscriptions of nearly all the Western bishops had been uncanonically extorted to a dogma which he characterizes as |non minus stultum quam impium| (iv.8, § 20 init.). Garnier assigns the letter to Rufus and the two to Zosimus to A.D.418 (ad Primam Partem, diss. i. Migne, 292).

When Julian addressed his two letters to Zosimus he was preparing a reply to the first of Augustine's two books de Nuptiis et Concupiscentiâ (Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef. § 7), which he addressed to a fellow-recusant named Turbantius, whose prayers he earnestly asks that the church may be delivered from the defilement of Manicheism (ib. iii.). He sent some extracts from the work, which was in four books, and apparently entitled Contra eos qui nuptias damnant et fructus earum diabolo assignant (August. de Nuptiis et Concupisc. ii.4, § 11), to Valerius, who forwarded them to his friend Augustine, who at once rejoined in a second book de Nuptiis et Concupiscentiâ (August. Retract. ii.53). When Julian's work subsequently came into his hands, Augustine published a fuller rejoinder in his contra Julianum Pelagianum. Augustine freely quotes his antagonist, and we see that Julian again insisted upon the Manicheism of his opponents (lib. ii. passim); again charged Zosimus with prevarication (iii.1, vi.2), and elaborated the whole anthropology for which he contended.

When driven from the West, Julian and some of his fellow-exiles went into Cilicia and remained for a time with Theodorus, bp. of Mopsuestia (Mar. Merc. Theod. Mops. praef. § 2), who is charged by Mercator with having been one of the originators of Pelagianism (Subnot. praef. § 1, Symb. Theod. Mops. praef. § 2) and who wrote against Augustine (Phot. Bibl. Cod.177; Mar. Merc. Garnier, ad Prim. Partem, diss. vi.). Meanwhile the rejoinder of Augustine had reached Julian, who answered it in 8 books, addressed to Florus, a fellow-recusant (Co. Eph. A.D.431, actio v. in Mansi, iv.1337; Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef.). Mercator has given various extracts (Subnot. passim), but it is best known from Augustine's elaborate Opus Imperfectum, which was evoked by it (August. Opp. t. x. in Patr. Lat. xlv.1050), but left incomplete. On the death of Boniface I. and the succession of Celestine I. in Sept.422, Julian apparently left Cilicia and returned to Italy, probably hoping that the new pontiff might reconsider the case of the Pelagians, especially as a variance had then arisen between the Roman see and the African bishops. Celestine repulsed him, and caused him to be exiled a second time (Prosper. contra Collator. xxi.2, in Patr. Lat. li.271). Julian was also condemned, in his absence, by a council in Cilicia, Theodorus concurring in the censure (Mar. Merc. Symb. Theod. Mops. praef. § 3; Garnier, ad Prim. Part. diss. ii. Migne, 359). On this Julian went to Constantinople, where the same fate awaited him both from Atticus and his successor Sisinnius (A.D.426, 427) (Garnier, u.s.361; Coelest. ad Nestor. in Mansi iv.1025). On the accession of Nestorius to the patriarchate (A.D.428) the expectations of Julian were again raised, and he appealed both to Nestorius and to the emperor Theodosius II. Both at first gave him some encouragement (Mar. Merc. Nestor. Tract. praef. § 1), which may be why there is no mention of the Pelagians in the celebrated edict which the emperor issued against here sies at the instance of Nestorius (Cod. Theod. XVI. v.65, May 30, 428; Socr. H. E. vii.29). The patriarch wrote to Celestine more than once in his behoof and that of his friends (Nestor. Ep. to Celest. in Mansi, iv.1022, 1023), but the favour he shewed them necessitated his defending himself in a public discourse delivered in their presence, and translated by Mercator (u.s. Migne, 189 seq.). In 429 Mercator presented his Commonitorium de Coelestio to the emperor, wherein he carefully relates the proceedings against the Pelagians and comments severely upon their teaching. Julian and his friends were then driven from Constantinople by an imperial edict (Mar. Merc. Commonit. praef. § 1). Towards the close of 430 Celestine convened a council at Rome, which condemned Julian and others once more (Garnier, u.s. diss. ii.). Whither he went from Constantinople does not appear, but he with other Pelagians seem to have accompanied Nestorius to the convent of Ephesus, A.D.431, and took part in the |Conciliabulum| held by Joannes of Antioch (Relat. ad Coel. in Mansi, iv.1334). Baronius (s.a.431 lxxix.) infers from one of the letters of Gregory the Great (lib. ix. ind. ii. ep.49 in Patr. Lat., xv. lxxvii.981) that the |Conciliabulum| absolved Julian and his friends, but Cardinal Noris (Opp. i.362) has shewn that the council repeat their condemnation of the Pelagians, expressly mentioning Julian by name (Relat. u.s.; Mar. Merc. Nestor. Tract. praef. § 2).

Sixtus III., the successor of Celestine (July 31, 432) when a presbyter, had favoured the Pelagians, much to the grief of Augustine (Ep.174). Julian attempted to recover his lost position through him, but Sixtus evidently treated him with severity, mainly at the instigation of Leo, then a presbyter, who became his successor, A.D.440 (Prosper. Chron. s.a.439). When pontiff himself, Leo shewed the same spirit toward the Pelagians, especially toward Julian (de Promiss. Dei, pt. iv. c.6 in Patr. Lat. li.843). We hear no more of Julian until his death in Sicily, c.454 (Gennad. Script. Eccl. xlv. in Patr. Lat. lviii.1084; Garnier, u.s. diss. i. Migne, 297).

Some years after his death Julian was again condemned by Joannes Talaia, formerly patriarch of Alexandria, but c.484 bp. of Nola in Italy (Phot. Bibl. Cod. liv.; s.f. August. Opp. in Patr. Lat. xlv.1684).

Julian was an able and a learned man. Gennadius speaks of him as |vir acer ingenio, in divinis Scripturis doctus, Graeca et Latina lingua scholasticus| (u.s.). He was of high character, and especially distinguished for generous benevolence (Gennad. u.s.), and seems actuated throughout the controversy by a firm conviction that he was acting in the interests of what he held to be the Christian faith and of morality itself.

Besides his works already mentioned, Bede speaks of his Opuscula on the Canticles, and among them of a |libellus| de Amore, and a |libellus| de Bono Constantiae, both of which he charges with Pelagianism, giving from each some extracts (in Cantica, praef. Migne, 1065-1077). Garnier claims Julian as the translator of the Libellus Fidei a Rufino Palaestinae Provinciae Presbytero, which he has published in his ed. of Marius Mercator (ad Primam Partem, dissert. v. Migne, 449, dessert. vi. Migne, 623), and as the author of the liber Definitionum seu Ratiocinationem, to which Augustine replied in his de Perfectione Justitiae (note 6 in Mar. Merc. Subnot. Migne, 145, 146). Cf. A: Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum (Leipz.1897) in Texte und Untersuch. xv.3.

[T.W.D.]

Julianus, bishop of Cos
Julianus (27), bp. of Cos, the friend and frequent correspondent of Leo the Great. He was by birth an Italian. Being educated at Rome (Leo. Mag. Ep. lxxxi.1042; Migne, Ep. cxiii.1190) he was acquainted with Latin as well as Greek (Ep. cxiii.1194) and was thus useful to Leo, who was ignorant of Greek. Leo found in him a man after his own heart. He describes him as a |part of himself| (Ep. cxxv.1244). Long experience led him to put the fullest confidence in his orthodoxy, erudition, watchfulness, and zeal (Ep. xxxv.875, xci.1066). Nothing could exceed the value of such a man to Leo to watch over the interests of the faith and the Roman see in the East. Julian was present at the council of Constantinople in 448 and professed his belief in the |two natures in one Person| -- an expression which Dioscorus could not tolerate when he heard it read at Chalcedon -- and subscribed the condemnation of Eutyches (Labbe, Concilia, iv.188 B, 231 B. In Apr.449 he was present at the synod in Constantinople, granted by the emperor at the demand of Eutyches to verify the records of the former council. Here we find him disputing occasionally the exact accuracy of the |Acta| (Labbe, iv.231 (2), c.234 (2) B; Tillem. xv.511). He wrote to Leo a letter which produced two replies dated the same day, June 13, 449, the first of a long series of letters from Leo to Julian (Epp. xxxiv. xxxv.). The latter of the two contains an elaborate dogmatic statement against Eutyches. After this Julian became one of the pope's chief mediums for impressing his wishes and policy on the East. [[327]LEO.] Through the Eutychian troubles Julian remained true to the faith and suffered so much that, as he tells Leo, he thought of retiring to Rome (Ep. lxxxi.1042). It was JULIUS of Puteoli, however, not this Julian, who was papal legate at the council of Ephesus. Leo commended Julian to the favour of Pulcheria and Anatolius of Constantinople as one who had always been faithful to St. Flavian (Epp. lxxix. lxxx.1037, 1041, dated Apr.457). In June 451 he begs him to associate himself with his legates, Lucentius and Basil, to the council of Chalcedon (Ep. lxxxvi.1063). He is commended to Marcian the emperor as a |particeps| with them (Ep. xc.1065). His exact position at that council appears somewhat ambiguous. He is not mentioned among the legates in the letter of Leo to the council (Ep. xciii.1070), but in the Acts of the council is always spoken of as holding that position (Labbe, iv.80 C, 852 C, 559 E). In the list of signatures he does not appear among the legates of Rome, yet higher than his own rank, as bp. of Cos, would entitle him to appear, and among the metropolitans (cf. Tillem. xv.645, and note, 43). His condemnation of Dioscorus, with reasons assigned, appears in the acta of the third session of the council (Labbe, iv.427 C). In the matter of the claims of BASSIAN and Stephen to the see of Ephesus, he gives his voice first for setting both aside, then for allowing a local council to choose (701 D, 703 D). He displeased Leo by not resisting the 28th canon of the council in favour of the claims of Constantinople (Ep. xcviii.1098), and by writing to Leo begging him to give his assent to it (Ep. cvii.1772). After this, however, he is in as good favour as ever. From Mar.453 he was apocrisiarius or deputy of the see of Rome at the court of Constantinople. Leo requests him to remain constantly at court, watching zealously over the interests of the faith (Epp. cxi.1187, cxiii.1190, |speculari non desinas|; cf. Tillem. xv.761). In Mar.453 Leo requested him to make a complete translation of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon (Ep. cxiii.1194). Julian seems to have returned to his diocese in 457 (cf. Tillem. xvii.762, 791) and wrote a reply, in his own name only, to the circular letter of the emperor Leo on the excesses of Timothy Aelurus and the authority of the Chalcedonian council. [[329]LEO, emperor.] Julian urges that Timotheus should be punished by the civil power and maintains strongly the authority of the council. |For where were assembled so many bishops, where were present the holy Gospels, where was so much united prayer, there, we believe, was also present with invisible power the author of all creation| (Labbe, iv.942; Or. Chr. i.935). After this no more is known of him.

[C.G.]

Julianus, bishop of Halicarnassus
Julianus (47), bp. of Halicarnassus in the province of Caria; a leader of the Monophysites. In 511 he was active in conjunction with Severus and others in instigating the emperor Anastasius to depose Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople (Theod. Lect. ii.26). Theophanes erroneously speaks of him as bp. of Caria before he was bp. of Halicarnassus (Chron. A.C.503, in Patr. Gk. cviii.362). On the accession of Justin I. in 518, severe measures were taken against the Monophysites and Julian was driven from his see. He went to Alexandria, followed quickly by Severus on his expulsion from Antioch (Liberatus, Brev. c.19; Evagr. H. E. iv.4; Vict. Tunun. Chron. s.a.539). Timotheus the successor of Dioscorus the younger received both kindly, and they settled near the city. Shortly afterwards a monk appealed to Severus as to whether the body of our Lord should be called corruptible. He answered that the |fathers| had declared that it should. Some Alexandrians hearing this asked Julian, who said that the |fathers| had declared the contrary. In the fierce controversy thus evoked the Julianists charged the Severians with being Phthartolatrae or Corrupticolae, while the Severians charged the Julianists with being Phantasiastae and Manicheans (Liberatus, u.s.; Tim. Presb. de Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.58; Niceph. Call. E. H. xviii.45). The designation by which the Julianists were more generally known was
Aphthartodocetae or Incorrupticolae (Jo. Damasc. de Haer. § 84). Much was written on either side. The only writings of Julian that remain are his Ten Anathemas, a Syriac version by Paulus, the deposed bp. of Callinicus, being published by Assemani (MSS. Cod. Biblioth. Apost. Vatic. Catalog. iii.230, 231). A Latin trans. of this valuable document is given by Gieseler in his Commentatio qua Monophysitarum veterum variae de Christi persona, opiniones imprimis ex ipsorum effatis recens editis illustrantur (P. ii. p.5). Three letters from Julian to Severus, also translated by Paulus, and several fragments are among the Syrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. Pt. ii.554, 929, 960, 961, pt. iii.1059). Assemani also gives three letters of his to Severus from the Syriac MSS. in the Vatican (u.s. iii.223).

Leontius of Byzantium tells us that Julian earnestly contended for the |Incorruptibility,| because he considered the view of Severus made a distinction (diaphoran) between the body of our Lord and the Word of God, to allow of which was to acknowledge two natures in Him (de Sect. act v.3, in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.1230). This explanation is also given by Theodorus Rhaituensis (de Incarnat. in Patr. Gk. xci.1498) and is fully sustained, especially by the eighth Anathema as pub. by Gieseler. He was certainly no Phantasiast and far from being a Manichean; but, as Dorner justly observes, in asserting |the supernatural character of our Lord's body,| Julian and his followers did not intend to deny its |reality,| but only aimed at |giving greater prominence to His love by tracing not merely His sufferings themselves, but even the possibility of suffering| to His self-sacrifice (Person. of Christ, ed. Clark, ii. i.129). Jo. Damasc. Orth. Fid. iii.28; Eus. Thess. contr. Andr.; Phot. Bibl. Cod.162; Thom. Aquin. Sum. p. iii. q. i. art.5 concl.

Julian by some means recovered his see of Halicarnassus, but in the council of Constantinople A.D.536, under Agapetus bp. of Rome, he was again deposed (Theoph. s.a.529; Mansi, viii.869; Libell. Syn. in Labbe, v.276). After this he disappears, but his opinions continued to spread long afterwards, especially in the East; where his followers ultimately divided, one part holding |that the body of our Lord was absolutely (kata panta propon) incorruptible from the very 'Unio' itself| (ex autes tes henoseos); another, that it was not absolutely incorruptible but potentially (dunamei) the reverse, yet could not become corruptible because the Word prevented it; and a third that it was not only incorruptible from the very |Unio,| but also increate (ou monon aphtharton ex autes henoseos, alla kai aktiston). These last were distinguished as Actistitae. Tim. Presb. u.s.43; Leont. Byzant. contr. Nestor. et Eutych. ii. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.1315, 1358; Id. de Sect. act x. ib.1259; Anastas. Sinait. Viae Dux, c.23, in Patr. Gk. lxxxix.296; Isaac. Arm. Cath. Orat. contr. Armen. c.1, in Patr. Gk. cxxxii.1155; Id, de Reb. Arm. ib.1243.

Four scholastici from Alexandria visited Ephesus c.549, and prevailed upon bp. Procopius to avow himself a Julianist. In 560, immediately after his decease, seven of his presbyters, who were also Julianists, are said to have placed the hands of his corpse on the head of a monk named Eutropius, and then to have recited the consecration prayer over him. Eutropius afterwards ordained ten Julianist bishops, and sent them as missionaries east and west, among other places to
Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, and into Syria, Persia, Mesopotamia, and the country of the Homerites (Asseman. Bibl. Or. i.316, ii.86, 88, iii. pt. ii. cccclv.; Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. ii.755).

By A.D.565 the emperor Justinian had become an
Incorruptibilist. He issued an edict avowing his change of opinion and gave orders that |all bishops everywhere| should be compelled to accept Julianism (Evagr. H. E. iv.39; Theoph. s.a.557; Cedrenus, Comp. Hist. ed. Bonn. i.680; Pagi, Critic. s.a.565, ii.). This naturally encountered great opposition, especially, among others, from Anastasius patriarch of Antioch (A.D.559-569) and Nicetius bp. of Trèves (527-566) (Nicetius, Ep.2 in Patr. Lat. lxviii.380). But the Gaianites of Alexandria took courage from the edict to erect churches in that city, and elected Helpidius, an archdeacon, as their bishop (Theoph. u.s.). He almost immediately incurred the displeasure of the emperor and died on his way to Constantinople, whither he had been summoned. They then united with the Theodosians under Dorotheus, who, Theophanes says, was one of that party, but who both Sophronius of Jerusalem and John of Ephesus, the latter of whom especially was likely to be much better informed than the Chronographer, say was a Julianist (Sophron. Ep. Syn. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvii.3191; Jo. v. Eph. Kirchengesch. uebers, v. Schönfelder, i.40, p.47). Justinian died Nov.565.

The Julianists were still numerous at Alexandria during the patriarchate of Eulogius (Phot. Bibl. Cod.227) and continued so still later. Sophronius of Jerusalem speaks of |Menas Alexandrinus, Gaianitarum propugnator| as his contemporary (u.s.3194), and Anastasius Sinaita relates a public disputation with the Gaianites of that city in which he took part (Viae Dux, u.s.150 seq.). They were known in the West as late as the commencement of 7th cent. (Greg. I. Ep. lib. ix. ind. ii. ep.68, ad Eus. Thessal. in Patr. Lat. lxxvii. A.D.601; Jaffé, Reg. Pont.145; Eus. Thessal. u.s.). In Armenia they were very numerous in the time of Gregory Bar-hebraeus (Assemani, u.s. ii.296; Dorner, u.s.13 n.).

Julian achieved a very high reputation as a commentator on the Scriptures. Nicetas bp. of Heraclea, c.1077, selected many of the most striking passages in his Catena Graecorum Patrum in Beatum Job from Julian's exegetical and other writings. This catena was first published by Patricius Junius, with a Latin trans. (London, 1637, fol.), and afterwards in Greek only at Venice (1792, fol.). The quotations from Julian are in the |Proemium| and pp.37, 45, 66, 93, 170, 178, 228, 230, 273, 437, 465, 480, 505, 539, 547-613, of the former of these editions. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles, viii.647, 650; Cave, i.495; Ceillier, xi.344. Cf. Usener in Lietzmann's Katenen, Freib. in Breisq (1897), p.28, and the Rhein Mur. f. Phil.1900, iv. p.321; also Loofs in Leont. von Byzanz. (Leipz.1887), i. p.30.

[T.W.D.]

Julianus, missionary priest to the Nubians
Julianus (73), missionary priest to the Nubians in the reign of Justinian. John of Ephesus (R. Payne Smith's trans. pp.251 seq.) and Bar-hebraeus (in Asseman. Bibl. Or. ii.330) give an account of him. He was an old man of great worth, and one of the clergy in attendance on Theodosius, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, then residing at Constantinople. Julian had long desired to Christianize the Nobadae or Nubians, a wandering people E. of the Thebais and beyond the limits of the empire, which they greatly harassed. The empress Theodora warmly encouraged the undertaking and consulted Justinian about it, who became interested but objected to Julian as a Monophysite, and named another instead, whilst Theodora persisted in favouring Julian. John of Ephesus describes fully the rival missions and the triumph of the empress's schemes. Julian reached the Nubian court first, won over the king and secured the rejection of the emperor's envoy when he arrived. Thus the Nubians were gained to the Monophysite creed and to the jurisdiction of Theodosius. After labouring there two years Julian placed Theodore, a Thebaid bishop, in charge and returned to Constantinople, where he soon afterwards died. For the subsequent history of the mission see LONGINUS.

[T.W.D.]

Julianus, Flavius Claudius, emperor
Julianus (103), Flavius Claudius, emperor, often called Julian the Apostate; born A.D.331; appointed Caesar, Nov.6, 355; proclaimed Augustus, Apr.360; succeeded Constantius as sole emperor, Nov.3, 361; died in Persia, June 27, 363. For the authorities for Julian's life, see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v.

The first and still in some respects the best English account of Julian is to be found in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, cc.19, 22-24 -- a forcible and on the whole very just picture. Like some other cold and sceptical people (e.g. Strauss), Gibbon despised Julian's superstitious enthusiasm, and, though he cannot restrain some sneers at the church and the orthodox faith, this part of his history has generally met with comparative favour at the hands of Christian critics. Mr. J. W. Barlow on Gibbon and Julian in the Dublin Hermathena for 1877 endeavours to shew that Gibbon, in order to gain a reputation for impartiality, is unfair to the emperor, whom he thinks morally and intellectually the best man |of the whole series.| In the first three quarters of the last century little or nothing was published in England specially on this subject. An interesting and valuable essay, written for a Cambridge historical prize by the Hon. Arthur Lyttelton, has been kindly placed at the disposal of the writer of this article, who owes to it several important references. It is embodied in the Church Qtly. Rev. for Oct.1880, Vol. xi. pp.24-58, The Pagan Reaction under Julian, which gives a fresh and vigorous view of the subject. Mr. Gerald H. Rendall's Hulsean Essay for 1876, The Emperor Julian; Paganism and Christianity is decidedly the best account of Julian's religious position in English, perhaps in any modern language. In French, we have the invaluable Tillemont and other writers of church history. Besides the articles in vol. iv. of the Empereurs there is a special treatise on the Persécution de l'Eglise par J. l'Apostat, in vol. vii. of the Mémoires. We miss, however, a critical treatment of the authorities and wide generalizations in Tillemont. He also seems to exaggerate the scope of the law against Christian professors. The fullest history of Julian is that of Albert de Broglie in vols. iii. and iv. of his L'Eglise et l'empire romain au quatrième siècle (Paris, 1866, etc.). This is indispensable to the student of the period. Its general attitude is that taken in this article, but he is too anxious to make points to be careful of minute accuracy, and therefore of entire fairness, and his references often want correction. These volumes were reviewed by C. Martha in the Revue des deux mondes for Mar.1867, vol. lxviii. pp.137-169, who paints the emperor more favourably. In German J. F. A. Mücke, Flavius Claudius Julianus: nach den Quellen (Gotha, 1867 and 1869, 2 parts) is the most complete modern account. Fr. Rode, Geschichte der Reaction Kaiser Julians gegen die christliche Kirche (Jena, 1877); a useful study, and generally very accurate, paying proper attention to chronology. The writer takes up something of the same position is Keim does in his essay on Constantine's conversion -- striving after fairness towards the church, without accepting its doctrines. He admires Julian's books against the Christians as anticipating the line of modem critical theology in many points, pp.102, 103; cf. p.32, n.10.

§ 1. Early years of Julian as a Christian. (A.D.331-351). § 2. Conversion to heathenism 351-355. § 3. Julian as Caesar from Nov.6, 355 to Nov.3, 361. § 4. Residence at Constantinople as Augustus, Nov.3, 361 to May, 362. § 5. Journey through Asia Minor, May to July, 362. § 6. Residence at Antioch, July, 362 to March 5, 363. § 7. Persian campaign and death, March 5 to June 27, 363.

§ 1. Early Years of Julian as a Christian (A.D.
331-351). -- Flavius Claudius Julianus was the youngest son of Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine the Great. His mother, Basilina, was of the noble family of the Anicii, and daughter of Julianus the praetorian prefect, whose name was given to her son. Julian was born at Constantinople in the latter part of A.D.331, the year after the dedication of the new capital.

Upon the death of Constantine in May 337, and the accession of his three sons, there was a general massacre of the male branches of the younger line of the Flavian family descended from Constantius Chlorus and his second wife Theodora. In this tragedy there perished the father and eldest brother of Julian, his paternal uncle, his cousins the Caesars Delmatius and Hanniballian, and four other members of the family. Julian and his elder half-brother Gallus, who was sick of an illness which was expected to be mortal, were alone preserved, by the compassion or the policy of Constantius (cf. Socr. H. E. iii.1; Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p.58 B . Julian, ad S. P. Q. Athen. p.270 C , gives the list of those who perished, and ascribes their deaths to Constantius, who he says wished at first to slay both himself and Gallus). Julian is said to have owed his life to the interference of Mark, bp. of Arethusa, who gave him sanctuary in a church (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p.80 C ). The boy was taken charge of by his mother's family, and his education conducted under the direction of the Arian Eusebius, bp. of Nicomedia, who was distantly related to him (Amm. xxii.9.4; Cf. Soz. v.2). When Eusebius was translated in 388 to the see of Constantinople Julian probably went with him, and attended the schools of that city (cf. Libanius, epitaphios, ed. Reiske, i. p.525; Julian, Ep.58; and Rode, Die Reaction Julians, p.22, n.10). His constant attendant and guardian was his mother's slave Mardonius, whose influence evidently had great power in moulding the character and tastes of his pupil, and who insisted strongly on a staid and perhaps rather pedantic demeanour (Liban. l.c.; Jul. Misopogon, pp.351 seq.; Mücke, in his Julianus nach den Quellen, zweite Abtheilung, pp.6. and 9, makes a curious blunder in supposing that Julian disliked Mardonius). Though educating him only for a private position, he set before him a high standard, and particularly held up to his imitation the names and characters of |Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and Theophrastus| (Misop. p.353 B). He kept him from the theatre and the circus, and taught him rather to love the Homeric descriptions of Phaeacia and Demodocus and Calypso's isle, and the cave of Circe (ib.351 D). Such teaching doubtless fed the naturally dreamy temperament of his pupil. Julian tells us that from a child he had a strange desire of gazing at the sun, and that he loved to spend a clear night in looking fixedly at the moon and stars, so that he almost gained the character of an astrologer (Jul. Or. iv. ad regem Solem ad init.; cf. the fable, Or. vii. p.229, in which he speaks of himself as entrusted by Zeus to the sun's guardianship).

These pleasant days of freedom .were brought to an abrupt conclusion by the command of Constantius. The death of his relative Eusebius (in 342) deprived Julian of a powerful protector, when he was about 11 years old; and soon after (probably in 343 or 344) the emperor recalled Gallus from exile, and sent the two brothers to the distant palace of Macellum in Cappadocia. Here for six years they were kept under surveillance, with no lack of material comforts, but apart from young men of their own age and with only the society of their slaves (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p.58 B; Julian, ad Ath. p.271 C). Their seclusion was only once broken by a visit from Constantius (Jul. ad Ath. p.274, probably in 347, see laws of the Cod. Theod. in this year). Masters and teachers were not wanting, especially of that form of Arianism to which Constantius was devoted; and Julian now, if not before, made a considerable verbal acquaintance with the Bible, an acquaintance which frequently appears in his writings. He and Gallus were admitted to the office of Reader in the church -- a proof that he had been baptized, though no mention of his baptism is recorded. They interested themselves zealously in the building of chapels over the relics of certain martyrs (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p.58; Soz. v.2). The success of Gallus in this building and the ill-success of Julian was remarked at the time, and was (afterwards, at any rate) considered as an omen of his apostasy (Greg. Naz. l.c. p.59).

In the spring of 351 Constantius felt himself forced by the burden of empire to take a colleague, and Gallus was appointed Caesar. Julian with difficulty was permitted to leave Macellum, and seems to have returned for a short time to Constantinople; there he studied grammar with Nicocles, and rhetoric with Hecebolius then a zealous Christian (Socr. H. E. iii.1). Constantius, fearing lest his presence in the capital might lead to his becoming too popular, ordered him to remove to Nicomedia (Liban. Epitaph. p.526, prosphonetikos, p.408). Hecebolius exacted a promise from his pupil that he would not attend the lectures of the famous heathen sophist Libanius; Julian kept his promise, perhaps fearing to excite suspicion by outward intercourse with a chief partisan of the old religion, but contented himself with a study of the written lectures of the master (Liban. l.c.526 seq. Libanius does not name Hecebolius, but the description seems to point to him: Sievers, Libanius, p.54, n.5, supposes Nicocles to be meant). Others, however, in Nicomedia besides Libanius attracted the attention of the young prince. He here learnt to know some of the more mystical of the heathen party, to whom paganism was still a reality and the gods living beings, visions of whom were to be seen by night and whose power still worked signs and wonders. |He is sent to the city of Nicomedes,| says Libanius, |as a place of less importance than Constantinople. But this was the beginning of the greatest blessings both to himself and the world. For there was there a spark of the mantic art still. smouldering, which had with difficulty escaped the hands of the impious. By the light of this| (turning to Julian) |you first tracked out what was obscure, and learnt to curb your vehement hatred of the gods, being rendered gentle by the revelations of divination | (Liban. Prosphoneticus, ed. Reiske, 1, p.408.

While Julian was thus having his first experience of the inner circle of heathen life, Gallus met his brother for the last time as he passed through Bithynia to undertake the government of the East with which Constantius had invested him (Liban. Epitaph. p.527, dia tes Bithunias). The two brothers, according to Julian's account, corresponded but rarely after this, and on few subjects (Jul. ad Ath. p.273; Liban. Epitaph. p.530). Gallus, it is said, having reason at a later date to suspect his brother's change of belief, sent the Arian Aetius to confer with him (Philostorgius, 3, 27). Julian, if we may believe Libanus, sent Galllus good advice on his political conduct, which had he followed he might have preserved both the empire and his life (Liban. ad Jul. cos. p.376, ed. Reiske).

§ 2. Conversion to Heathenism (A.D.351-355). -- The secret apostasy of Julian was the result of his residence at Nicomedia, though it was not completed there. The chief agent in effecting it was the neo-Platonist Maximus of Ephesus, a philosopher, magician, and political schemer. The fame of the wisdom of Aedesius first attracted Julian to Pergamus but he, being old and infirm, recommended him to his pupils, Chrysanthius and Eusebius. The latter was, or pretended to be, an adversary of the theurgic methods of Maximus, and a follower of the higher and more intellectual Platonism, and used to finish every lecture by a general warning against trickery and charlatans. Julian, much struck with this, took the advice of Chrysanthius upon the point, and asked Eusebius to explain what he meant. The latter replied by an account of Maximus, which gave a new edge of the already keen curiosity of Julian. |Some days ago| (he went on) |he ran in and called our company together to the temple of Hecate, thus making a large body of witnesses against himself. . . . When we came before the goddess and saluted her, he cried, 'Sit down, dearest friends, and see what will happen, and whether I am superior to ordinary men.' We all sat down, then he burnt a grain of frankincense, and as he repeated some sort of chant to himself he so far succeeded in the exhibition of his power that first the image smiled and then even appeared to laugh. We were confounded at the sight, but he said, 'Let none of you be disturbed at this, for in a moment the torches which the goddess has in her hands will be lighted up' -- and before he had done speaking light actually burned in the. torches. We then retired, being amazed and in doubt at the wonder which had taken place. But do not you wonder at anything of this kind, just as I also through the purifying effects of reason conceive it is nothing of great importance.| Julian (says Eunapius) hearing this, exclaimed, |Farewell, and keep to your books, if you will; you have revealed to me the man I was in search of| (Eunapius, Vita Maximi, pp.48-51, ed. Boissonade). It is difficult to believe that Eusebius was not in league with Chrysanthius to bring Julian under the influence of Maximus. The young prince hurried off to Ephesus, and there threw himself with eagerness into the teaching of his new master, which seems exactly to have suited his fantastic temperament. Julian had no practical Christianity to fall back upon. The sense of being watched and suspected had sunk deeply into his mind at Macellum, and he had learnt to look upon Constantius not only as his jailor, but as the murderer of his nearest relations. This naturally did not incline him to the religion inculcated by Arian or semi-Arian court bishops, who probably laid stress upon their peculiar points of divergence from the orthodox faith, and neglected the rest of Christian theology. Julian therefore conceived of Christianity, not as a great body of truth satisfying the whole man, but as a set of formulas to be plausibly debated and distinguished. On the other hand, he had a real, though pedantic, love of Hellenic authors and literature, and a natural dislike to those who destroyed the ancient monuments of the old faith. His characteristic dreaminess and love of mystery found satisfaction in the secret cults to which men like Maximus were addicted -- all the more zealously as public sacrifice was difficult or dangerous. He was by nature ardent and superstitious, and never fell into good hands. The pagan coterie soon discovered the importance of their convert, and imbued him with the notion that he was the chosen servant of the gods to bring back again Hellenic life and religion. By the arts of divination a speedy call to the throne was promised him, and he vowed to restore to the temples if he became emperor. (Libanius Epitaph. pp.529 and 565, who agrees substantially with Socrates, iii.1, p.168, and Sozomen, v.2, p.181; cf. Theod. iii.1). For the present, however, the fulfilment of such hopes seemed distant, and Julian for ten years pretended zeal for Christianity (Liban. Epitaph. p.528; Amm. xxii.5, 1; Sol iii.1; Soz. v.2). He had, indeed, good reason to fear the suspicions of his cousin. In 354 [[330]GALLUS], was craftily removed from his government and executed, and Julian was apprehended, on obscure charges (Amm. xv.2, 7 -- the charge of leaving Macellum without permission seems strange, since the brothers had been released from their retirement some four years before). For seven months he was confined in N. Italy near the court, being removed from place to place (Jul. ad Ath. p.272 D; Liban. Epitaph. p.530; cf. Jul. ad Themist. p.260 A) -- an imprisonment brought to an end by the intervention of the gentle empress Eusebia, who procured for him an interview with Constantius, and leave to return to his studies (Jul. ad Ath. pp.272, 274; Or.3, p.118 B). At first he determined to retire to his mother's property in Bithynia, Constantius having confiscated all the estates of his father (Jul. ad Ath. p.273; Ep.40, p.417 A, to Iamblichus -- an interesting letter written 3 years later, and not concealing his religious opinions). He had hardly arrived in Asia Minor when the suspicions of Constantius were aroused by two reports brought by informers, one of treasonable proceedings at a banquet given by Africanus, the governor of Pannonia Secunda at Sirmium, the other of the rising of Silvanus in Gaul (Jul., ad Ath. p.273 C, D; cf. Amm. xv.3, 7 seq.). The first was no doubt connected in his mind with Julian, who had just passed through that country, and whom he in consequence recalled, but on his way back received permission, or rather command, to turn aside into Greece, a privilege which Eusebia had procured for him (ad Ath.273 D; Or.3, p.118 C). He thus could gratify a long-cherished wish of visiting Athens. The young prince was naturally well received by professors and sophists, such as Prohaeresius and Himerius, then teaching at Athens. He had a turn for philosophy, and could discourse eagerly, in the modern neo-Platonic fashion, about the descent and the ascent of souls. He was surrounded by a swarm of young and old men, philosophers and rhetoricians, and (if we may believe Libanius) gained favour as much by his modesty and gentleness as by the qualities of his intelligence (Liban. Epitaph. p.532). Two of the most distinguished of his familiars among his fellow-students at this time were the future bishops Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, then as always close and intimate friends. Gregory, however, seems to have detected something of his real character; he noticed an air of wildness and unsteadiness, a wandering eye, an uneven gait, a nervous agitation of the features, an unreasoning and disdainful laugh, an abrupt, irregular way of talking, which betrayed a mind ill at ease with itself, and exclaimed, |What a plague the Roman empire is breeding! God grant I may be a false prophet!| (Or. pp.161, 162). Gregory, who had many friends among the professors, may well have been aware of the real state of the young prince's mind, and of his nightly visits to Eleusis, where he could indulge his religious feelings without reserve. Maximus had introduced him to the hierophant there, a great miracle-worker who was in league with the heathen party in Asia Minor (Eunapius, Vita Maximi, pp.52, 53).

§ 3. Julian as Caesar (from Nov.6, 355, to Nov.3, 361 -- death of Constantius). -- About May 355 Julian was permitted to go to Athens, but a few months later was summoned again to the court (Jul. ad Ath. p.273 D). He left the city in low spirits and with many tears, and, stretching out his hands to the Acropolis, besought Athena to save her suppliant -- an act which, he tells us, many saw him perform (ib. p.475 A). Those who did so could hardly have doubted his change of religion, and there were doubtless many sympathizers who looked to him as the future restorer of the old faith. He first crossed the Aegean to Ilium Novum, where he visited the antiquities under the guidance of the then Christian bp. Pegasius, who delighted him by omitting the sign of the cross in the temples, and otherwise shewing heathen sympathies (Jul. Ep.78 -- the letter, first edited by C. Henning, in Hermes, Vol. ix.). On his arrival at Milan, Constantius was absent, but Julian was well received by the eunuchs of the empress (ad Ath. pp.274, 275 B). His first impulse was to write to his protectress and implore her to obtain leave for him to return home; but on demanding a revelation from the gods, he received an intimation of their displeasure and a threat of disgraceful death if he did so, and, in consequence; schooled himself to yield his will to theirs, and to become their instrument for whatever purposes they chose (ib. pp.275, 276 ; cf. Liban. ad Jul. consulem, t.1, p.378). Constantius soon returned, and determined, under the persevering pressure of his wife and notwithstanding strong opposition, to give the dignity of Caesar to his sole remaining relative (Amm. xv.8, 3; Zos.3, 1). On Nov.6, 355, Julian received the insignia in the presence of the army at Milan, and was given control of the prefecture of Gaul (i.e. Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany), and especially of the defence of the frontiers (ad Ath. p.277 A; Amm. l.c.). As he drew the unwonted garb around him in place of his beloved pallium, he was heard to mutter the line of Homer, to which his wit gave a new shade of meaning:

|Him purple death and destiny embraced|

(Amm. xv.8, 17). At the same time he received, through the management of Eusebia, the emperor's sister Helena as his bride, and the gift of a library from the empress herself (Or. iii. p.123 D). Thus the reconciliation of the cousins was apparently complete. Julian produced a spirited panegyric upon the reign and just actions of Constantius, which it seems right to assign to this date (Or.1; cf. Spanheim's notes, p.5). He set out, on Dec.1, for his new duties with a small retinue, from which almost all his personal followers were carefully excluded (Amm. xv.8, 17, 18; Jul., ad Ath. p.277 B, C). Of his four slaves, one was his only confidant in religious matters, an African named Euhemerus (ad Ath. p.277 B; Eunap. Vita Maximi, p.54). His physician, Oribasius, who had charge of his library, was only allowed to accompany him through ignorance of their intimacy (ad Ath. l.c.; Eunap. Vita Oribasii, p.104). He entered Vienne with great popular rejoicing (for the province was hard-pressed by the barbarians) and possibly with secret expectations amongst the heathen party, which had been strong in the time of Magnentius. A blind old woman, learning his name and office as he passed, cried out, |There goes he who will restore the temples of the gods!| (Amm. xv.8, 22).

During the next five years the young Caesar appears as a strenuous and successful general and a popular ruler. The details of his wars with the Franks and Alamanns, the Salii and Chamavi, will be found in Ammianus and Zosimus. Perhaps we ought to recollect that he was his own historian, writing |commentaries| (now no longer extant) which were no doubt intended to rival those of the author of the Gallic War. After an expedition against the Franks in the autumn of 357 he wintered for the first time at Paris, which became a favourite abode of his. He gives a well-known description of his phile Louketia in the Misopogon (pp.340 seq.). His military successes endeared him to both troops and people. His internal government, particularly as lightening public burdens, was equally popular. He had specially to contend with the avarice of Florentius, the praetorian prefect, who desired to increase the capitatio, and who, on Julian's refusal to sign the indiction, complained of him to Constantius (Amm. xvii.3, 2, and 5, in 357). Constantius, while reproving him for discrediting his officer, left him a practically free hand, and the tax, which on his entering Gaul was 25 aurei a head, had been reduced to 7 when he left (Amm. xvi.5, 24; cf. xvii.3, 6).

His ambition was to imitate Marcus Aurelius as a philosopher upon the throne, and Alexander the Great as a model in warfare (ad Themist. p.253). His table was very plainly furnished, and he refused all the luxuries which Constantius had written down for him as proper for a Caesar's board (Amm. xvi.5, 3). His bed was a mat and a rug of skins, from which he rose at midnight, and, after secret prayer to Mercury, addressed himself first to public business and then to literature. He studied philosophy first, then poetry, rhetoric, and history, making himself also fairly proficient in Latin. His chamber was ordinarily never warmed; and one very cold night, at Paris, he was nearly suffocated by some charcoal in a brazier, but erroneously attributed it to the dampness of the room (Misopogon, p.341). All this attracted the people, but was not agreeable to many of the courtiers. Julian knew that he was surrounded by disaffected officials and other spies upon his conduct, and continued to conceal his religious sentiments, and to act cautiously towards his cousin. During his administration of Gaul he produced another panegyric upon Constantius, and one upon Eusebia, though the exact occasion of neither can be determined (Or.2 and 3). In these orations Julian, though indulging to the full in classical parallels and illustrations, takes care to hide his change of religion. He speaks even of his prayers to God for Constantius, naturally indeed and not in a canting way (Or.3, p.118 D). Nor did he hesitate to join with him in issuing a law denouncing a capital penalty against those who sacrifice to or worship idols (Cod. Theod. xvi.10, 6, Apr.356), in repressing magic and all kinds of divination with very severe edicts (ib. ix.16, 4-6, in 357 and 358), in punishing renegade Christians who had become Jews (ib. xvi.8, 7), and in granting new privileges to the church and clergy, and regulating those already given (ib. xvi.2, 13-16; the last as late as Mar.361). To have hinted at dislike to any of these measures would, indeed, have aroused at once the strongest suspicions. One of the edicts against magic, which threatens torture for every kind of divination, seems almost personally directed against Julian (Cod. Theod. ix.16, 6, dated July 5, 358, from Ariminum). The effect upon his conscience of condemning as a public officer what he was secretly practising must have been hardening and demoralizing. For Julian was not without thought on such subjects. At another time he declared he would rather die than sign the oppressive edict brought him by Florentius (Amm. xvii.3, 2); and in his later famous decree against Christian professors he writes vehemently of the wickedness of thinking one thing and teaching another (Ep.42).

In Apr.360 Constantius ordered the flower of the Gallic auxiliaries to be sent to aid him in his expedition against the Persians (Amm. xx.4). This request produced great irritation among men who had enlisted on the understanding that they were not to be required to cross the Alps -- an irritation fomented no doubt by the friends of Julian, particularly, it is said, by Oribasius (Eunap. Vita Oribasii, p.104). The troops surrounded the palace at Paris and demanded that their favourite should take the title of Augustus (ad Ath. p.284; Amm. xx.4, 14). Julian, according to his own account, was quite unprepared for such a step, and would not accede till Jupiter had given him a sign from heaven. This sign was no doubt the vision of the Genius of the Empire, who declared that he had long been waiting on his threshold and was now unwilling to be turned away from it. Yet he warned him (so Julian told his intimates) that his residence with him would in no case be for long (Amm. xx.5, 10; cf. Lib. ad Jul. cos. p.386). We have no reason, however, to think that Julian had any real hesitation, except as to the opportuneness of the moment. When he came down to address the troops, he still appeared reluctant, but the enthusiasm of the soldiers would take no denial, and he was raised in Gallic fashion upon a shield, and hastily crowned with a gold chain which a dragoon (draconarius) tore from his own accoutrements. He promised the accustomed donative (Amm. xx.4, 18), which the friends of Constantius, it would seem, secretly tried to outdo by bribes (ad Ath. p.285 A). The discovery of their intrigue only raised the popular enthusiasm to a higher pitch, and Julian felt strong enough to treat with his cousin. He dispatched an embassy with a letter declining to send the Gallic troops, who (he declared) positively refused to go, and could not be spared with safety; but he offered some small corps of barbarian auxiliaries. He related the action of the army in proclaiming him Augustus, but said nothing of his own wish to bear the title. As a compromise he proposed that Constantius should still appoint the praetorian prefect, the chief governor of that quarter of the empire, but that all lesser offices should be under his own administration (ib. D, and for particulars, Amm. xx.8, 5-17), who gives the substance of the letter at length). But to these public and open requests he added a threatening and bitter private missive, which had the effect, whether intentionally or not, of rendering his negotiations abortive (Amm. l.c.).

Such a state of things could only end in war, but neither party was in a hurry to precipitate it. In Vienne Julian celebrated the fifth anniversary of his appointment, and appeared for the first tune in the jewelled diadem which had become the symbol of imperial dignity (Amm. xxi.1, 4). Meanwhile both Eusebia and Helena had been removed by death, and with them almost the last links which united the cousins. Julian still kept up the pretence of being a Christian. At Epiphany, 361, he kept the festival solemnly and even ostentatiously, joining in the public prayers and devotions (ib.2). He witnessed calmly the triumphant return of St. Hilary after his exile, and permitted the Gallic bishops to hold a council at Paris (S. Hilarii, Frag. Hist. pp.1353, 1354). His name also appears, after that of Constantius, attached to a law issued on Mar.1 at Antioch, giving privileges to Christian ascetics. But all this was mere dissimulation for the sake of popularity. In secret he was anxiously trying, by all possible heathen means, to divine the future (Amm. xxi. x1 6 seq.). He sent in particular for the hierophant of Eleusis, with whose aid he performed rites known to themselves alone (Eunap. Vita Maximi, p.53; cf. Amm. xxi.5, 1, |placata ritu secretiori Bellona|).

The irritation against Constantius was further increased by an arrogant letter, addressed of course to the Caesar Julian, requiring his immediate submission and merely promising him his life. Julian, on receiving this, uttered an exclamation which betrayed his religion: |He would rather commit himself and his life to the gods than to Constantius| (Zos. iii.9, 7). The moment seemed now come for action. In a speech to the soldiers in which he referred in ambiguous language to the will of the God of heaven -- |arbitrium dei caelestis| -- he called upon them to take the oath of allegiance and follow him across the Alps. He spoke in general terms of occupying Illyricum and Dacia, and then deciding what was to be done (Amm. xxi.5). Having thus secured the Western provinces, he made a rapid and successful passage through N. Italy, receiving its submission. He reached Sirmium without opposition, having ordered the different divisions of his army to concentrate there. Then he took and garrisoned the important pass of Succi (Ssulu Derbend) on the Balkans, between Sardica and Philippopolis, thus securing the power to descend into Thrace. For the time he established his quarters at Naissus (Nish), and awaited further news. From there he wrote to the senate of Rome against Constantius, and in self-defence to the Athenians, Lacedemonians, and Corinthians (Zos. iii.10).

The Athenian letter was possibly entrusted to the Eleusinian hierophant, who returned home about this time. It was perhaps also under his guidance that Julian underwent the secret ceremonies of initiation described by Gregory Nazianzen (Or.4, 52-56, pp.101-103). According to common report, he submitted to the disgusting bath of blood, the taurobolium or criobolium, through which the worshippers of Mithra and Cybele sought to procure eternal life. Julian's object, it is said, was not only to gain the favour of the gods, but also to wash away all defilement from previous contact with the Christian mysteries. This miserable story is yet a very credible one. Existing monuments prove that many pagans of position continued the taurobolium till the end of the 4th cent. (see the inscriptions in Wilmanns, Exempla Inscr. Lat.107-126).

Such secret incidents preceded Julian's public declaration of his change of religion. At Naissus or Sirmium he threw off the mask, and professed himself openly a heathen. Of his first public sacrifice he wrote with exultation to his friend Maximus: |We worship the gods openly, and the greatest part of the troops who accompanied me profess the true religion. We have acknowledged our gratitude to the gods in many hecatombs. The gods command me to consecrate myself to their service with all my might, and most readily do I obey them. They promise us great returns for our toils if we are not remiss| (Ep.38, p.415 C).

Now came the news of his cousin's sudden death at Mopsucrene, at the foot of Mount Taurus, on Nov.3, and Julian learnt that he was accepted without opposition as the successor designated by his dying breath, a report of which we cannot guarantee the truth (Amm. xxii.2, 6).

§ 4. Julian as Augustus at Constantinople (from Nov.3, 361, to May 362). -- Julian hastened to Constantinople, through the pass of Succi and by Philippopolis and Heraclea, entering the Eastern capital amid general rejoicings on Dec.11. He conducted the funeral of Constantius with the usual honours; laying aside all the imperial insignia, except the purple, and marching in the procession, touching the bier with his hands (Liban. Epitaph. p.512, cf. Greg. Naz. Or.5, 16, 17, pp.157, 158). Constantius was buried near his father in the Church of the Apostles, but whether Julian entered it is not stated.

Almost his next act was to appoint a special commission under the presidency of Saturninus Sallustius Secundus (to be distinguished from the prefect of the Gauls) to bring to justice the principal supporters of the late government. Julian himself avoided taking part in it, and allowed no appeal from its decisions. The commission met at Chalcedon, and acted with excessive rigour.

Julian next turned his attention to the palace, with its swarm of needless and overpaid officials, eunuchs, cooks, and barbers, who battened on bribes and exactions. All these he swept away, to the general satisfaction (Amm. xxii.4; Liban. Epit. p.565).

Towards Christians he adopted a policy of toleration, though desiring nothing more keenly than the humiliation of the Church. His object was to set sect against sect by extending equal licence to all (cf. Amm. xxii.5). He issued an edict allowing all bishops exiled under Constantius to return, and restoring their confiscated property (Socr. iii.1, p.171). On the other hand, the extreme Arian, Aetius, as a friend of Gallus, received a special invitation to court (Ep.31). A letter |to Basil,| seemingly of the same date, and of similar purport, may possibly have been addressed to St. Basil of Caesarea (Ep.12; De Broglie assumes this, t. iv. pp.133, 235, n.). To Caesarius, a court physician of high repute and the brother of Gregory, Julian shewed great attention, and strove for his conversion. He even entered into a public discussion on religion with him, and was much mortified by the ill success of his rhetoric (Greg. Naz. Ep.6; Orat. vii.11-14). The Donatists, Novatianists, and perhaps some extreme Arians were not loth to appear before the new emperor, who sought to destroy unanimity by extending free licence to all Christian sects, but there is no trace of any important Catholic leader falling into the snare. In the same spirit he ordered Eleusius, Arian bp. of Cyzicus, to restore the ruined church of the Novatianists within two months (Socr. ii.38, p.147; iii.11; cf. Ep.52, p.436 A). Toleration was also extended to the Jews, from a real though imperfect sympathy. Their ritual seemed to Julian a point of contact with Hellenism, and with their rejection of an Incarnate Saviour he was quite in harmony. He approved of their worship of the Creator, but could not tolerate their identification of Him with the God Whose especial people they claimed to be -- and Whom he, in his polytheism, imagined to be an inferior divinity (S. Cyril. in Jul. iv. pp.115, 141, 201, 343, 354, ed. Spanheim).

The great task which lay nearest his heart was the restoration of heathenism to its former influence and power, and its rehabilitation both in theory and practice. He composed an oration for the festival of the sun, no doubt that celebrated on Dec.25, as the |Natalis Solis invicti,| in connexion with the winter solstice. Though Constantinople had never been a heathen city, or polluted with public heathen ceremonies, he called this |the festival which the imperial city celebrates with annual sacrifices| (Orat.4, p.131 D). The main body of the oration is occupied with the obscure theory of the triple hierarchy of worlds: the kosmos noetos or |intelligible world,| the kosmos noeros or | intelligent,| and the kosmos aisthetos the |visible| or |phenomenal.| In each of these three worlds there is a central principle, who is the chief object of worship and the fountain of power; the Sun king being the centre of the intermediate or |intelligent| world. This ideal god was evidently a kind of counterpoise in Julian's theology to the Word of God, the mediator of the Christian Trinity (mese tis, ouk apo ton akron kratheisa, teleia de kai amiges aph' holon ton theon emphanon te kai aphanon kai aistheton kai noeton, he tou basileos Heliou noera kai pankalos ousia, p.139 B, and ton noeron theon mesos en mesois tetagmenos kata pantoian mesoteta. Cf. Naville, Jul. l'A. et sa philosophie du polythéisme, pp.102 seq.). This oration should be read in connexion with the fifth oration |on the Mother of the Gods,| which he delivered at her festival, apparently at the vernal equinox, and while still at Constantinople. It is chiefly an allegorical platonizing interpretation of the myth of Attis and Cybele, very different from the modern reference of it to the circle of the seasons.

In the practice of all superstitious ceremonies, whether public or mystic, Julian was enthusiastic to the point of ridiculous ostentation. He turned his palace into a temple. Every day he knew better than the priests themselves what festival was in the pagan calendar, and what sacrifice was required. He himself acted as attendant, slaughterer, and priest, and had a passion for all the details of heathen ritual (Liban. Epitaph. p.564, ad Jul. cos. pp.394 seq.; Greg. Orat.5, 22, p.161; de Broglie, iv. pp.126, 127). No previous emperor had so highly prized his office of pontifex maximus, which Julian valued as equal to all the other imperial prerogatives (chairei kaloumenos hiereus ouch hetton e basileus Liban. ad Jul. cos. p.394). In this capacity he apparently attempted to introduce something of the episcopal regimen into the loose system of the heathen priesthood, himself occupying the papal or patriarchal chair (cf. Greg. Or.4, ii. p.138). Thus he appointed Theodorus chief priest of Asia and Arsacius of Galatia, with control over inferior priests; the hierophant of Eleusis was set over Greece and Lydia, and Callixene made high priestess of Pessinus. (Ep.63 Theodoro is early in his reign, and the long Fragmentum Epistolae may be a sequel to it; Ep.49 Arsacio is later, as is that to Callixene, Ep.21. The appointments of the hierophant and of Chrysanthius are described by Eunapius, Vita Maximi, pp.54, 57). As chief pontiff he issued some remarkable instructions to his subordinates, some of which have been preserved. His |pastoral letters,| as they may properly be called, to the chief priests of Asia and Galatia, shew a striking insight into the defects of heathenism considered as a religious ideal, and a clear attempt to graft upon it the more popular and attractive features of Christianity. He regrets several times that Christians and Jews are more zealous than Gentiles, especially in charity to the poor (Ep.49, pp.430, 431; in Frag. p.305 he refers to the influence of the Agapé and similar institutions. In Ep.63, p.453 D, he describes the persistency of the Jews in abstaining from swine's flesh, etc.). He promises large endowments of corn for distribution to the indigent and the support of the priesthood ; and orders the establishment of guest-houses and hospitals (xenodocheia, katagogia xenon kai ptochon, Soz. v.16, Jul. Ep.49, p.430 C). In the very spirit of the Gospel he insists on the duty of giving clothing and food even to enemies and prisoners (Frag. pp.290-291). |Who was ever impoverished,| he writes, |by what he gave to his neighbours? I, for my part, as often as I have been liberal to those in want, have received back from them many times as much, though I am but a bad man of business ; and I never repented of my liberality | (Frag. p.290 C). Elsewhere he enters into minute details on the conduct and habits of the priesthood. He fixes the number of sacrifices to be offered by day and night, the deportment to be observed within and without the temples, the priest's dress, his visits to his friends, his secret meditations and his private reading. The priest must peruse nothing scurrilous or indecent, such as Archilochus, Hipponax, or the old comedy; nothing sceptical like Pyrrho and Epicurus; no novels and love-tales; but history and sound philosophy like Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics; and must learn by heart the hymns to the gods, especially those sung in his own temple (Frag. pp.300-301; cf. Ep.56, to Ecdicius, ordering him to train boys for the temple choirs). He must avoid theatres and taverns, and all public resorts where he is likely to hear or see anything vulgar or indecent (Frag. p.304 B, C; Ep.49, p.430 B). Not only priests, but the sons of priests, are forbidden to attend the |venationes| or spectacles of wild beasts (Frag. p.304 D). The true priest is to be considered superior, at least in the temple, to any public official, and to be honoured as the intercessor between gods and men (Frag. p.296 B, C; cf. the edict to the Byzantine against applauding himself in the Tychaeum, Ep.64). He, however, who does not obey the rules laid down for his conduct, is to be removed from his office (Frag. p.297; Ep.49, p.430 B); and we possess an edict of Julian's suspending a priest for three months for injury done to a brother priest (Ep.62).

Further, |he intended,| says Gregory Or. iv. III, p.138), |to establish schools in all cities, and professorial chairs of different grades, and lectures on heathen doctrines both in their bearings on moral practice and in explanation of their abstruser mysteries.| Of such lectures, no doubt, he wished his own orations on the Sun and the Mother of the Gods to be examples. Besides this imitation of Christian sermons and lectures, he desired to set up religious communities of men and women, vowed to chastity and meditation (hagneuteria te kai partheneumata kai phrontisteria cf. Soz. v.16). These were institutions familiar to Oriental heathenism, but out of harmony with the old Greek spirit of which Julian professed himself so ardent an admirer. He was, indeed, unconsciously less a disciple of Socrates than of the Hindu philosophy, a champion of Asian mysticism against European freedom of thought.

Julian used not only his literary and personal influence and pontifical authority in favour of the worship of the gods, but also his imperial power. The temples where standing were reopened, or rebuilt at the expense of those who had. destroyed them, and received back their estates, which had been to some extent confiscated under Constantius (Amm. xxii.4, 3, |pasti ex his quidam templorum spoliis|; Liban. Epitaph. p.564, describes the general plan of restitution; cf. his Ep.624, pasi keruxas komizesthai ta hauton.). A friend of the gods was as a friend of the emperor's, their enemy became his (Liban. l.c. and more strongly p.617). Yet direct persecution was forbidden and milder means of conversion practised (Ep.7 to Artabius; Liban.564). Julian even bore with some patience the public attacks of the blind and aged Maris, Arian bp. of Chalcedon, who called him an |impious atheist,| while he was sacrificing in the Tychaeum of Constantinople. Julian replied only with a scoff at his infirmity: |Not even your Galilean God will heal you.| Maris retorted, |I thank my God for my blindness which prevents me from seeing your apostasy,| a rebuke which the emperor ignored (Soz. v.4, where we must of course read tuchaio for teichio cf. Jul. Ep.64, Byzantinis). Not a few persons of position apostatized, among them Julian's maternal uncle Julianus, his former tutor Hecebolius, the officials Felix, Modestus, and Elpidius, and the former bp. of Ilium Novum, Pegasius, all of whom were rewarded by promotion. (Philost. vii.10; Socr. iii.13; Liban. pro Aristophane, pp.435, 436, and Ep.17; Greg. Naz. Or. iv.62, p.105; Jul. Ep.78 ; cf. Sievers, Libanius, p.105. On the readiness of many of these converts to return to the church cf. Asterius of Amasea, Hom. in Avaritiam, p.227, and Hom. xix. in Psalm. v. p.433, Migne.) But the number of these new converts was less than might perhaps have been expected from the divided state of the church and the low standard of court Christianity under Constantius. It was far less, no doubt, than Julian's sanguine expectations. Caesarius, as we have seen, stood firm, and so did three prominent officers in the army, destined to be his successors in the empire -- Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens (Valentinian was banished, Soz. vi.6 ; Philost. vii.7 ; cf. Greg. Or. iv.65, p.106). The steadfastness of the court and the army was indeed sorely tried. The monogram of Christ was removed from the Labarum, and replaced by the old S.P.Q.R.; and heathen symbols again began to appear upon the coinage, and upon statues and pictures of the emperor, so that it was difficult to pay him respect without appearing to bow to an idol. (Greg. Or. iv.80, 81, pp.116, 117; Socr. vi.17. Socrates probably somewhat exaggerates. The obscure letter of Julian to a painter, Ep.65, appears to reprimand him for painting him without his customary images in his hands or by his side.) Julian even condescended to a trick to entrap a number of his soldiers, probably of the praetorian guard, by persuading them to offer incense when receiving a donative from his hands (Soz. v.17; Greg. Or. iv.83, 84, pp.118, 119; cf. Rode, p.62). Some of the soldiers, on discovering the snare from the jeers of their companions, protested loudly and threw down their money; and Julian, in consequence, dismissed all Christians from his bodyguard (Greg. l.c.; Socr. iii.13). Many common soldiers were doubtless less firm, and conformed, at least outwardly, but the subsequent election of Jovian by the army of Persia looks as if their conviction was not deep. (Liban. ad Jul. cos. Jan. I.363, p.399; Greg. Or. iv.64, 65, p.106 ; St. Chrys. de Babyla contra Julianum, § 23, vol. ii. pp.686, 687, ed. Gaume; cf. Sievers, Libanius, pp.107-109). It was pretty well understood that no Christian official would be promoted to high civil functions, while converts like Felix and Elpidius were. Julian is reported to have stated in an edict that the Christian law forbade its subjects to wield the sword of justice, and therefore he could not commit the government of provinces to them. Such a sentiment would be characteristic, and this edict is probably an historical fact (Rufin. i.32), but perhaps did not extend to persons already in office or in the army, unless they offered resistance to the course of events. Other measures were aimed at the clergy as a body, and intended to reduce the church generally to the position which it held before Constantine. The church suffered as much perhaps as private owners of property by the order to restore the temples and refund temple lands. The clergy and widows who had received grants from the municipal revenues were deprived of them and obliged to repay their previous receipts -- an act of great injustice (Soz. v.5). The church lost its power of inheritance, and its ministers the privileges of making wills and of jurisdiction in certain cases (Jul. Ep.52, p.437 A Bostrenis). But perhaps what was felt most of all was the loss of immunity from personal taxation and from the service of the curiae or municipal councils, who were held responsible for the taxes of their district. A short decree issued on Mar.13, 362, made all persons, formerly privileged as Christians, liable to the office of decurion (Cod. Theod. xii. I, 50). We may readily admit that the church would have been safer and holier without some of its privileges, which bound it too closely to the state. But to abolish them all at once, without warning, was a very harsh proceeding, which caused much suffering, and Ammianus only spoke the general opinion when he censured the conduct of his hero (Amm. xxv.4, 21, cf. xxii.9, 12). A Greek decree of apparently the same date, addressed to the Byzantines -- i.e. the citizens of Constantinople -- extended this measure to all privileged persons whatsoever, except those who had |done public service in the metropolis| -- i.e. probably, those who had as consuls or praetors exhibited costly games for the public amusement (Ep. II); a later decree also confirming the |chief physicians| in their immunities (Cod. Theod. xiii.3-4, nearly equivalent to Ep.25).

In the spring of this year, while he was still at
Constantinople, the affairs of the church of Alexandria attracted Julian's attention, and led to the first decided step which violated his policy of personal toleration. The intruded Arian bishop, George of Cappadocia, had made himself equally detested by pagans and Catholics. On Dec.24 he was foully murdered by the former (without any intervention of Christians) in a riot. Dracontius, master of the mint, who had overturned an altar recently set up in his office, and Diodorus, who was building a church and gave offence to pagan prejudices by cutting short the hair of some boys employed under him, were both torn to pieces in the same sedition (Amm. xxii. II, 9). Julian wrote an indignant reprimand to the people, but inflicted no punishment (Ep.10, Amm. l.c.; cf. Julian's letter to Zeno, Ep.45). On Feb.22 St. Athanasius was again seated upon his throne amid the rejoicing of the people. Julian saw in him an enemy he could not afford to tolerate. He wrote to the Alexandrians (apparently at once), saying that one so often banished by royal decree ought to have awaited special permission to return; that in allowing the exiled bishops to come back he did not mean to restore them to their churches; Athanasius, he feared, had resumed his |episcopal throne,| to the great disgust of |god-fearing Alexandrians.| He therefore ordered him to leave the city at once, on pain of greater punishment (Ep.26). Athanasius braved the emperor's wrath and did not leave Alexandria, except, perhaps, for a time. Public feeling was with him, and an appeal was apparently forwarded to the emperor to reconsider his sentence. (Ep.51, written probably in Oct.362, speaks of Athanasius as (epizetoumenos by the Alexandrians.) The sequel of this appeal will appear later.

Another change of policy about this time shewed a further advance in intolerance and inconsistency. Julian determined to take the control of education into the hands of the state. On June 17, while en route between Constantinople and Antioch, he issued an edict, promulgated at Spoleto, to the Western empire, on June 28. This document said nothing about Christian teachers, but required for all professors and schoolmasters a diploma of approval from the municipal council in every city before they might teach. This was to be forwarded to himself for counter-signature (Cod. Theod. xiii.3, 5). This power of veto was no doubt aimed at Christian teachers; and another edict, supposed to have been issued soon after, struck an open and violent blow at the church. This may have been issued even earlier; it can hardly have been much later (Ep.42, with no title or date). It declares that |only a cheat and a charlatan will teach one thing while he thinks another. All teachers, especially those who instruct the young, ought . . . not to oppose the common belief and try to insinuate their own. . . . Now Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and Lysias all founded their learning upon the gods, and considered themselves dedicated to Hermes or the Muses. It is monstrous, then, that those who teach these writers should dishonour their gods. I do not wish them to change their religion that they may retain their offices, but I give them the choice, either not to teach, or, if they prefer to do so, to teach at the same time that none of these authors is guilty of folly or impiety in his doctrine about the gods. . . . If teachers think these authors which they expound wise, and draw philosophy from them, let them emulate their religion. If they think them in error, let them go to the churches of the Galileans and expound Matthew and Luke, who forbid our sacrifices. I wish, however, the ears and tongues of you Christians may be 'regenerated,' as you would say, by these writings which I value so much.|

Christians considered the decree practically to exclude them from the schools. For Julian expressly orders all teachers to insist on the religious side of their authors. Grammar schools were to become seminaries of paganism. No indifferent or merely philological teaching was to be allowed. No sincere Christian parents therefore could send their sons to such schools. A quotation given by Gregory, as if from this decree, is not found in the text of the edict as we have it (Or.4, 102, p.132). Perhaps he may be quoting some other of Julian's writings, e.g. the books against the Christians. The words are characteristic: |Literature and the Greek language are naturally ours, who are worshippers of the gods ; illiterate ignorance and rusticity are yours, whose wisdom goes no further than to say `believe.'| The last taunt is borrowed from Celsus (Origen, c. Celsum, i.9).

Two celebrated men gave up their posts rather than submit to this edict -- Prohaeresius of Athens, whom many thought superior to Libanius, and C. Marius Victorinus of Rome. Julian had already made overtures to the former (Ep.2), and even offered to except him from the action of the edict; but he refused to be put in a better condition than his fellows (Hieron. Chron. sub anno 2378; cf. Eunap. Prohaeresius, p.92; Himerius, p.95 ; and Frag.76, p.544, ed. Boissonade). Victorinus was equally famous at Rome, and his constancy was a subject of just glory to the church (see the interesting account of his conversion, etc. in August. Conf. viii.2-5).

Attempts were made to supply the place of classical literature by putting historical and doctrinal portions of Scripture into Greek prose and verse. Thus the elder APOLLINARIS wrote 24 books in hexameters, which were to form a substitute for Homer, on the Biblical history up to the reign of Saul, and produced tragedies, lyrics, and even comedies on Biblical subjects (Soz. v.18). The younger Apollinaris reduced the writings of the N.T. into the form of Platonic dialogues (Socr. iii.16); and some of the works of Victorinus in Latin, such as the poem on the seven Maccabean brothers, and various hymns, may have been written with the same aim (cf. Teuffel, Gesch. der Röm. Lit. § 384, 7), as also the Greek tragedy, still extant, of Christus Patiens. Whatever their merit, these books could not properly supply the place of the classical training; and if Julian had lived and this edict had been put in force for any time, it would have been a very dangerous injury to the faith. (Socrates has some very good remarks on this subject, iii.16.)

§ 5. Julian's journey through Asia Minor -- (May to July 362). -- After a sojourn of about five months in Constantinople Julian began to think of foreign affairs. Fears of internal resistance were removed by the surrender of Aquileia, which had been seized by some troops of Constantius. He determined upon an expedition against Persia, the only power he thought worthy of his steel. Shortly after May 12 he set out upon a progress through Asia Minor to Antioch. He passed through Nicaea into Galatia, apparently as far as Ancyra, from which place, perhaps, he dispatched the edict about education just described (Amin. xxii.9, 5. If the law, Cod. Just. i.40, 5, is rightly attributed to Julian, he was at Ancyra on May 28, to which visit belongs a somewhat hyperbolical inscription celebrating his triumphant march from the Western Ocean to the Tigris, beginning, DOMINO TOTIVS ORBIS IVLIANO AVGVSTO EX OCEANO BRI TANNICO (C. I. L. iii.247, Orell.1109, Wilmanns 1089). From Ancyra he visited Pessinus in Phrygia to pay homage to the famous sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods, at which he offered large and costly presents (Amm. l.c.; Liban. ad Jul. cos. p.398). The oration in honour of this deity, who, with the Sun-god, was Julian's chief object of veneration, was probably delivered earlier; but he took occasion about this time to vindicate the doctrine of Diogenes from the aspersions of false and luxurious cynics (Or. vi. eis tous apaideutous kunas, delivered about the summer solstice, p.181 A). He was not satisfied with the progress of heathenism, amongst the people of the place (Ep.49, Arsacio pontifici Galatiae, ad fin.). At Ancyra, according to the Acts of the Martyrs, a presbyter named Basil was accused of exciting the people against the gods and speaking injuriously of the emperor and his apostate courtiers. Basil was cruelly treated in his presence, and, after a second trial, was put to death by red-hot irons (Boll. Mar.22; also in Ruinart, Acta Mart. Sincera, p 599; Soz. p.11). [[332]BASILIUS OF ANCYRA.] Julian left Ancyra, according to the same Acts, on June 29, and soon after was met by a crowd of litigants, some clamouring for a restoration of their property, others complaining that they were unjustly forced into the curia, others accusing their neighbours of treason. Julian shewed no leniency to the second class, even when they had a strong case, being determined to allow as few immunities as possible. To the rest he was just and fair, and an amusing instance is recorded of the summary way he disposed of a feeble charge of treason (Amm. xxii.9, 12 ; cf. xxv.4, 21).

In Cappadocia his ill-humour was roused by finding almost all the people Christian. |Come, I beseech you,| he writes to the philosopher Aristoxenus, |and meet me at Tyana, and shew us a genuine Greek amongst these Cappadocians. As far as I have seen, either the people will not sacrifice, or the very few that are ready to do so are ignorant of our ritual| (Ep.4). He had already shewn his anger against the people of Caesarea, the capital of the province, who had dared, after his accession, to destroy the Temple of Fortune, the last that remained standing in their city. According to Sozomen (v.4), he erased the city from the |list of the empire and called it by its old name Mazaca.| He fined the Christians 300 pounds of gold, confiscated church property, and enrolled the ecclesiastics in the militia of the province, besides imposing a heavy poll-tax on the Christian laity. But either these severe measures must have been justified by great violence on the part of the Christians or Sozomen's account is exaggerated; for Gregory Nazianzen says that it is perhaps not fair to reproach him with his violent conduct to the Caesareans, and speaks of him as |justly indignant| (Or.4, 92, p.126). Such mild language in this instance may well make us attach more weight to Gregory's statements as to Julian's misdoings on other occasions. The emperor was further incensed by the tumultuous election of Eusebius to the bishopric of Caesarea, in which the soldiers of the garrison took part. This Eusebius was still a catechumen, but a man of official rank and influence, known to be an enemy of the emperor (Greg. Or. in Patrem, xviii.33, p.354). The elder Gregory firmly resisted the remonstrances of the governor of the province, who was sent to him by Julian, and the storm passed away (ib.34, p.355). |You knew us,| cried Gregory, |you knew Basil and myself from the time of your sojourn in Greece, and you paid us the compliment which the Cyclops paid Ulysses, and kept us to be swallowed last | (Or.5, 39 p.174). The silence of Gregory may be taken as clenching the arguments from style against the genuineness of the supposed correspondence between Julian and St. Basil, which would otherwise be assigned to this date (see pp.490 f.). The letters referred to are Epp.40, 41, in the editions of St. Basil, the first of these -- Jul. Ep.75 (77 Heyler); cf. Rode, p.86, note 11.

A more pleasant reception awaited Julian in the neighbouring province, Cilicia. Entering it by the famous pass of the Pylae Ciliciae, he was met by the governor, his friend Celsus, once his fellow-student, and probably his confidant at Athens, who greeted him with a panegyric -- a greeting more agreeable to Julian than the customary presents made to emperors in their progresses (Amm. xxii.9, 13; Liban. Epit. p.575, and Ep.648). Julian shewed his high esteem for his encomiast by taking him up into his chariot and entering with him into Tarsus, a city which evidently pleased him by its welcome. Celsus accompanied him to the southern boundary of his province, a few leagues N. of Antioch. Here they were met by a large crowd, among whom was Libanius (Liban. de Vita Sua, p.81; Ep.648 ; see Sievers, Libanius, p.91). He reached Antioch before July 28, the date of a law found in both the Codes, permitting provincial governors to appoint inferior judges or judices pedanei (Cod. Theod. i.68 = Cod. Just. iii.3, 5; cf. C. I. L. iii.459).

§ 6. Julian's Residence at Antioch (July 362 to March 5, 363). -- The eight months spent at Antioch left Julian yet more bitter against the church, and less careful to avoid injustice to its members, in fact countenancing persecution even to death, though in word still forbidding it and proclaiming toleration. (Libanius says that Julian spent nine months at Antioch, Epit. p.578, 15, but it is hard to make more than eight.) The narrative of this period may be divided into an account of (a) his relations with the citizens of Antioch; (b) his relations to the church at large; (c) attempt to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem.

(a) Internal State of Antioch. -- On his entrance into the city Libanius greeted him in a speech in which he congratulated him on bringing back at once the ancient rites of sacrifice and the honour to the profession of rhetoric (Prosphoneticus Juliano, ed. Reiske, i. p.405). But other sounds saddened Julian with a presage of his coming doom. It was the festival of the lamentation for Adonis, and the air resounded with shrieks for the lover of Venus, cut down in his prime as the green corn fails before the heat of the summer sun. This ill-omened beginning was followed by other equally unpropitious circumstances, and the residence of Julian at Antioch was a disappointment to himself and disagreeable to almost all the inhabitants. He was impatient, or soon became so, to engage upon his Persian campaign; but the difficulty of making the necessary preparations in time determined him to pass the winter at the Syrian capital (Liban. Epit. p.576 ; Amm. xxii.10, 1). He had anticipated much more devotion on the part of the pagans and much less resistance on that of the Christians. He was disgusted to find that both parties regretted the previous reign -- |Neither the Chi nor the Kappa| (i.e. neither Christ nor Constantius) |did our city any harm| became a common saying (Misopogon, p.357 A). To the heathens themselves the enthusiastic form of religion to which Julian was devoted was little more than an unpleasant and somewhat vulgar anachronism. His cynic asceticism and dislike of the theatre and the circus was unpopular in a city particularly addicted to public spectacles. His superstition was equally unpalatable. The short, untidy, long-bearded man, marching pompously in procession on the tips of his toes, and swaying his shoulders from side to side, surrounded by a crowd of abandoned characters, such as formed the regular attendants upon many heathen festivals, appeared seriously to compromise the dignity of the empire. The blood of countless victims flowed everywhere, but seemed to serve merely to gorge his foreign soldiery, especially the semi-barbarous Gauls; and the streets of Antioch were disturbed by their revels (Amm. xxii.12, 6). Secret rumours spread of horrid nocturnal sacrifices and of the pursuit of arts of necromancy from which the natural heathen conscience shrank only less than the Christian. The wonder is, not that Julian quarrelled with the Antiochenes, but that he left the city without a greater explosion than actually took place.

Not a little of the irritation between the emperor and the citizens was centred upon the suburb of the city, called Daphne, a delicious cool retreat in which, as it was fabled, the nymph beloved by Apollo had been transformed into a laurel. Here was a celebrated temple of the god, and a spring that bore the name of Castalian, in former days the favourite haunt of the gay, the luxurious, and the vicious. Gallus had counteracted the genius loci by transposing to it the relics of the martyr bp. Babylas, whose chapel was erected opposite the temple of Apollo. The worship of the latter had almost ceased, and Julian, going to Daphne in Aug. (Loüs), to keep the annual festival of the Sun-god, was surprised to find no gathering of worshippers. He himself had returned for the purpose from a visit to the temple of Zeus Casius, several leagues distant. To his disgust the city had provided no sacrifice, and only one poor priest appeared, offering a single goose at his own expense. Julian rated the town council soundly (Misop. pp.361 D, seq.). He took care that in future sacrifices should not be wanting, and eagerly consulted the oracle and unstopped the Castalian spring. After a long silence he learnt that Apollo was disturbed by the presence of the |dead man,| i.e. Babylas. |I am surrounded by corpses,| said the voice, |and I cannot speak till they are removed| (Soz. v.19 ; Chrys. de S. Bab. §15, p.669; Liban. Monodia in Daphnen, vol. iii. p.333)· All the corpses were cleared away, but especially that of the martyr (Amm. xxii.12, 8; Misop. p.361 B). A remnant of religious awe perhaps prevented Julian from destroying the relics of which his actions practically acknowledged the power, and they were eagerly seized by the Christians and borne in triumph to Antioch. The procession along the five miles from Daphne to the city chanted aloud Ps. xcvii.: |Confounded be all they that worship carved images and that delight in vain gods.| Julian, incensed by this personality, forced the prefect Sallustius, much against his will, to inquire into it with severity and punish those concerned. One young man, Theodorus, was hung upon the rack (equuleus) and cruelly scourged with iron nails for a whole day, till he was supposed to be dying. Rufinus, the church historian, who met him in after-life, asked him how he bore the pain. Theodorus replied that he had felt but little, for a young man stood by him wiping off the sweat of his agony and comforting him all the time (Rufin. i.35, 36, referred to by Soc. iii.19, and given in Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, p.604, ed. Rabisbon.1859). The anger of Julian was also braved by a widow named Publia, the head of a small community of Christian virgins, who sang in his hearing the Psalms against idols and against the enemies of God. She was brought before a court and buffeted on the face with severity, but dismissed (Theod. iii. i9).

Shortly after the translation of the relics of St. Babylas to Antioch, on the night of Oct.22, the temple of Daphne itself was burnt to the ground. The heathens accused the Christians of maliciously setting it on fire; they attributed it to fire from heaven and the prayers of St. Babylas. A story also got about that Asclepiades the cynic had left a number of lighted candles burning in the shrine (Amm. xxii.13; Soz. v.20; Chrys. de S. Bab. § 17, p.674). Julian's wrath was intense. He accused the Christians of the deed, and suspected the priests of knowing about it (Misop. pp.346 B, 361 B, C). As a punishment he ordered the cathedral church of Antioch to be closed, and confiscated its goods (Amm. xxii.13, Soz. v.8). The order was executed by his uncle Julianus, now count of the East, with all the zeal of a new convert and with circumstances of disgusting profanity. Theodoret, a presbyter, who still collected a congregation of the faithful, was tortured and beheaded (Ruinart, Acta Mart. p.605). The Christian account tells us that Julian reproved his uncle as having brought him into disgrace, but in the Misopogon he gives him nothing but praise (ib. p.607, Misop. p.365 C). The count's miserable death, which followed soon after, was naturally treated as a judgment from heaven (Soz. v.8; Theod. iii.12, etc.). That of Felix, another renegade, had, a little earlier, been equally remarkable for its suddenness. The two were regarded as a presage of the emperor's own doom, for now that Julianus and Felix were gone, Augustus would soon follow, a play upon the imperial title Julianus Felix Augustus (Amm. xxiii.1, 5). This was a trivial saying, but calculated to disquiet and irritate a mind like Julian's.

Antioch meanwhile was afflicted by a dearth, which almost became a famine, and the emperor's efforts to alleviate it failed. He imported a large quantity of grain from Egypt, and fixed the market price at a low figure. Speculators bought up his importations, and would not sell their own stores, and soon there was nothing in the markets. Julian declared that the fault was in the magistrates, and tried in vain to infuse some of his own public spirit into the farmers and merchants (Liban. Epit. p.587). The town council were sent to prison (Amm. xxii.14, 2; Liban. Epit. p.588). Their confinement, however, did not last a day, and they were released by the intercession of Libanius, who tells us that he was not deterred from his petition by the sarcastic hint that the Orontes was not far off (de Vita Sua, vol. i. p.85). The whole winter, indeed, was clouded with misfortunes. On Dec.2 the rest of Nicomedia was destroyed by earthquake, and a large part of Nicaea suffered with it (Amm. xxii.13, 5). News was brought that Constantinople was in danger from the same cause, and some suggested that the wrath of the earth-shaker Poseidon must be appeased. This gave Julian, who had a real affection for the city, an opportunity of showing his enthusiasm. He stood all day long in the open air, under rain and storm, in a fixed and rigid attitude, like an Indian yogi, while his courtiers looked on in amazement from under cover. It was calculated afterwards that the earthquake stopped on the very day of the imperial intercession, and Julian, it is said, took no harm from his exposure (Liban. Epit. p.581). But this partial success did not make him feel secure of the favour of the gods. He was convinced that Apollo had deserted Daphne and the other deities were not propitious. Even the day of his entering the consulship, Jan.1, 363, graced with an oration of Libanius (ad Jul. imp. consulem), was disfigured by a bad omen: a priest fell dead on the steps of the temple of the Genius. This was the more annoying, as he had no doubt intended to make his fourth consulship mark a new era by taking as his colleague his old friend Sallustius prefect of the Gauls, an honour paid to no one outside the imperial family since the days of Diocletian (Amm. xxiii.1, 1). At the same time too he received news of the failure of the attempt (see (c), infra) to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem (Amm. xxiii.1, 3)

Meanwhile his designs for involving the city in heathen rites caused considerable excitement and odium. He profaned the fountains of the city of Daphne according to Christian ideas, and consecrated them according to his own, by throwing into them a portion of his sacrifices, so that all who used them might be partakers with the gods, and for a similar reason ordered all things sold in the market, such as bread, meat, and vegetables, to be sprinkled with lustral water. The Christians complained but followed the precept of the apostle in eating, freely all things sold in public, without inquiry (Theod. iii.15). Two young officers, Juventinus and Maximinus, were one day lamenting this state of things, and quoted the words from the Greek Daniel, c. iii.32, |Thou hast delivered us to a lawless king, to an apostate beyond all the heathen that are in the earth.| Their words were repeated by an informer, and they were ordered to appear before the emperor. They declared the cause of their complaint, the only one (as they said) which they had to bring against his government. They were thrown into prison, and friends were sent to promise them large rewards if they would change their religion; but they stood firm, and were beheaded in the middle of the night, on the charge of having spoken evil of the emperor (Chrys. in Juvent. et Max.3 ; cf. Theod. iii.15). The date of this |martyrdom| may have been Jan.25, as it appears in Latin calendars (Boll. Jan. p.618).

Julian discharged his spleen upon the Antiochenes by writing one of the most remarkable satires ever published -- the Misopogon. |He had been insulted,| says Gibbon, |by satires and libels; in his turn he composed, under the title of The Enemy of the Beard, an ironical confession of his own faults and a severe satire on the licentious and effeminate manners of Antioch. The imperial reply was publicly exposed before the gates of the palace, and the Misopogon still remains a singular monument of the resentment, the wit, the humanity, and the indiscretion of Julian| (Decline and Fall, c.24, vol.3, p.8, ed. Bohn). Julian's own philosophic beard gives the title to the pamphlet, which throws much light upon the character of the emperor. In form it is a dialogue between himself and the people, in which he describes his own virtues under the colour of vices, and their vices as if they were virtues. Occasionally he lays aside his irony and directly expresses his indignation against them, and reveals his own character with a humorous simplicity that in turn attracts and repels us. This pamphlet was written in the seventh month of his sojourn at Antioch, probably, that is, in the latter half of Jan.; and he left the city in the first week of March. |I turn my back upon a city full of all vices, insolence, drunkenness, incontinence, impiety, avarice, and impudence,| were his last words to Antioch (Liban. Legatio ad Jul. pp.469 seq.).

(b) Julian's Relation to the Church at Large during his Residence at Antioch. -- The general object of the emperor's policy was to degrade Christianity and to promote heathenism by every means short of an edict of persecution or the imposition of a general penalty on the profession of the faith.

We do not possess the text of many of Julian's edicts, a number of which were naturally removed from the statute book. We know that he ordered the temples to be reopened and their estates to be restored, but we do not know the terms in which this order was couched. Probably he used bitter language against the |atheists| and |Galileans,| ordering all chapels of martyrs built within the sacred precincts to be destroyed, and all relics of |dead men| to be summarily removed. Something of this kind must have been the sunthema or |signal,| of which he speaks in the Misopogon as having been followed by the neighbouring |holy cities| of Syria with a zeal and enthusiasm which exceeded even his wishes (Misop. p.361 A; Soz. p.20, ad fin., mentions an order to destroy two Christian chapels near the temple of Apollo Didymaeus at Miletus). This confession from his own mouth goes far to justify the statements of his opponents. Riots occurred in consequence of this |signal| in many cities, particularly of Syria and the East, where the Christians were numerous and popular passion was strong. The details of Julian's relation to some of these cases form perhaps the gravest stains upon his character.

The earliest case after his entry into Antioch which can be dated exactly was that of Titus, bp. of Bostra, in Arabia Auranitis. Julian had informed Titus that he should be held responsible for any breach of the peace (Soz. v.15, p.102 B). The bishop answered by a memorial, declaring that the Christian population was equal in numbers to the heathen but that under his influence and that of their clergy, they were careful to abstain from sedition (ib.). Julian on Aug.1, 362, replied by a public letter to the people of Bostra, representing this language as an impertinence, and calumniating Titus as the accuser of the Christian body. After quoting the memorial of Titus, he proceeds: |These are the words of the bishop concerning you. Observe, he does not ascribe your regularity to your own inclination; unwillingly, he says, you refrain 'by his exhortations.' Do you then use your wills, and expel him as your accuser from your city. . . Such is their fate who turn from the worship of the immortal gods to dead men and relics| (Ep.52).

A month or two later, probably in Oct., he continued his attack upon Athanasius, the first acts of which have already been described. The great champion had never left Alexandria, or had soon returned. Julian was thoroughly enraged to find his first order had not been executed. He wrote angrily to the prefect Ecdicius: |I swear by great Serapis if he does not leave Alexandria and every part of Egypt, by the 1st of Dec., I will fine your cohort a hundred pounds of gold. You know that I am slow to condemn, but when I have condemned much slower in pardoning,| adding in his own hand, |I am thoroughly pained at being treated in this way with contempt. By all the gods, no sight, or rather no news, of your doings could give me greater pleasure than that of Athanasius being driven from Egypt, the scoundrel who in my reign has dared to baptize Greek ladies of rank. Let him be expelled| (Ep.6). At the same time he wrote to the people of Alexandria, mingling personal abuse of their bishop with arguments to enforce the worship of Serapis and the visible gods, the sun and moon, and to depreciate the worship of |Jesus, Whom neither you nor your fathers have seen,| and |Whose doctrine has done nothing for your city.| |We have long ago ordered him,| he concludes, |to leave the city, now we banish him from the whole of Egypt| (Ep.51). The news of these decrees was brought to Athanasius on Oct.23, and he felt it time to depart. |Be of good heart,| he said to those who clustered round him, |it is but a cloud; it will soon pass| (Ruf. i.32 ; Festal Epistles, Chronicle, p.14, for the date). During the rest of Julian's reign he lived in retirement in the monasteries of the Egyptian desert.

To Hecebolius (who was perhaps his old master advanced to some place of authority) he wrote concerning a sedition at Edessa, in much the same terms as he had written to the people of Bostra, but apparently with more justice. |I have always used the Galileans well, and abstained from violent measures of conversion; but the Arians, luxuriating in their wealth, have treated the Valentinians in a manner which cannot be tolerated in a well-ordered city. In order, therefore, that they may enter more easily into the kingdom of Heaven in the way which their wonderful law bids them, I have ordered all the money of the church of Edessa to be seized for division amongst the soldiers, and its estates to be confiscated| (Ep.43, cf. Rufin. i.32; Socr. iii.13). This twisting of the gospel precept against the church is a close parallel to the alleged edict forbidding Christians to exercise the sword of the magistrate, and supports its authenticity (so Rode, p.85, n.9, see supra). Another disturbance was reported as occurring between the cities of Gaza and Maiuma in Palestine. The latter, originally a suburb of Gaza, had been raised by Constantius to the rank of an independent corporation. The people of Gaza had successfully petitioned the new emperor for a withdrawal of these privileges, and now in their exultation attacked their neighbours, and set fire to their chapels, with other acts of violence. Three brothers of a respectable family named Eusebius, Nestabus, and Zeno, were murdered with circumstances of great atrocity. The people were considerably alarmed by fear of what the emperor might do, and the governor arrested some of the ringleaders, who were brought to Antioch. In this case Julian's sense of justice seems entirely to have deserted him. Not only was no reprimand addressed to the people of Gaza, but the governor was himself put on his trial and deprived of his office. |What great matter is it if one Greek hand has slain ten Galileans?| were words well calculated to bear bitter fruit wherever they were repeated, and equivalent, as Gregory argues, to an edict of persecution (Greg. Or.4, 93, p.127; Sozomen -- a Gazene himself -- v.9). Rode accepts most of this story, but rejects without sufficient reason the words attributed to Julian, p.92, n.12, who did and said many things in a fit of passion, of which his cooler judgment disapproved. Disturbances against the Christians broke out in many parts of Palestine. Holy places and holy things were profaned, and Christian people maltreated, tortured, and destroyed, sometimes in the most abominable manner (Chron. Pasch. p.546, ed. Bonn.; Soz. v.21; Philost. vii.4).

Meanwhile Mark, bp. of Arethusa, a small town in Syria, who was said to have saved the life of the infant Julian, had refused to pay for the restoration of a temple which he had destroyed in the preceding reign. He was scourged in public, his beard was torn, his naked body was smeared with honey and hung up in a net exposed to the stings of insects and the fierce rays of the Syrian sun. Nothing could be wrung from him, and he was at last set free, a conqueror (Greg. Or.4, 88-91, pp.122-125; Soz. v.10). Wherever he went, he was surrounded by admirers, and this case became a warning to the more temperate and cautious pagans not to proceed to extremities. Libanius intercedes for an offender, lest he should turn out another Mark (Ep.730); and Sallust, the prefect of the East, admonished Julian for the disgrace this fruitless contest with an old man brought upon the pagan cause (Greg. l.c.; Sallust's name is not mentioned, but his office and character are described with sufficient clearness).

(c) Attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. -- Julian had apparently for some time past wished to conciliate the Jewish people, and was quite ready to grant Jehovah a place, amongst the other local deities (cf. Frag. p.295 C; St. Cyril. in Spanheim's Julian, pp.99, 100, and p.305, on Sacrifice). It seems probable, therefore, that his chief motive in wishing to restore the temple at Jerusalem was the desire to increase the number of divinities who were propitious to him, and to gain the favour of the Jewish God in the prosecution of his Persian campaign. This is substantially the account given by Socrates, who tells us that he summoned the Jews to him and asked why they did not offer sacrifice. They replied that it was not lawful for them to do so, except at Jerusalem, and he therefore determined to rebuild the temple of Solomon (Socr. iii.20). This account agrees best with the statements of the emperor himself in his epistles and in his books against the Christians, and other motives attributed to him may be considered as subordinate (cf. Greg. Or.5, 3, p.149; Rufin. i.37; Soz. v.21). There is, however, an air of great probability in the statement of Philostorgius that he wished to falsify the prediction of our Blessed Lord as to the utter destruction of the temple (vii.9). Nor could the enmity of the Jews against the Christians be otherwise than very pleasing to him (Greg. l.c. epatheke kai to Ioudaion phulon hemin). Julian provided very large sums for the work, and entrusted its execution to the oversight of Alypius of Antioch, an officer who had been employed by him in Britain and who was his intimate personal friend (Amm. xxiii. i.2; Epp.29 and 30 are addressed to him). The Jews were exultant and eager to contribute their wealth and their labour. The rubbish was cleared away and the old foundations were laid bare. But a stronger power intervened. To quote the words of Ammianus: |Whilst Alypius was strenuously forcing on the work, and the governor of the province was lending his assistance, fearful balls of flames, bursting out with frequent assaults near the foundations, and several times burning the workmen, rendered access to the spot impossible; and in this way the attempt came to a standstill through the determined obstinacy of the element| (xxiii.1, 3). No doubt the Christians saw in this defeat of their oppressor not only a miracle of divine power, but a peculiarly striking fulfilment of the old prophecies in which fire is so often spoken of as the emblem and instrument of judgment (e.g. Deut. xxxii.22, Jer. xxi.14, and particularly, perhaps, the historical description of Lam. iv.11, |The Lord hath accomplished His fury; He hath poured out His fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof|). They thought also, of course, of our Lord's own words, now more completely verified than ever. Julian retained his wide knowledge of the text of Scripture, as we see by his writings, and these prophecies doubtless irritated him by their literal exactness. The |globi flammarum prope fundamenta erumpentes| of the heathen historian are an undesigned coincidence with the words of Hebrew prophecy.

>From heathen testimonies, and from the fathers and historians of the church, Dr. Newman has put together the following detailed account of the occurrence, in which he chiefly follows Warburton. The order of the incidents is, of course, not certain, but only a matter of probable inference; nor can we guarantee the details as they appear in the later writers. |They declare as follows: The work was interrupted by a violent whirlwind, says Theodoret, which scattered about vast quantities of lime, sand and other loose materials collected for the building. A storm of thunder and lightning followed; fire fell, says Socrates, and the workmen's tools, the spades, the axes, and the saws were melted down. Then came an earthquake, which threw up the stones of the old foundation, says Socrates; filled up the excavation, says Theodoret, which had been made for the new foundations; and, as Rufinus adds, threw down the buildings in the neighbourhood, and especially the public porticoes in which were numbers of the Jews who had been aiding in the undertaking, and who were buried in the ruins. The workmen returned to their work; but from the recesses, laid open by the earthquake, balls of fire burst out, says Ammianus; and that again and again as often as they renewed the attempt. The fiery mass, says Rufinus, raged up and down the street for hours; and St. Gregory, that when some fled to a neighbouring church for safety the fire met them at the door and forced them back, with the loss either of life or of their extremities. At length the commotion ceased; a calm succeeded; and, as St. Gregory adds, in the sky appeared a luminous cross surrounded by a circle. Nay, upon the garments and the bodies of the persons present crosses were impressed, says St. Gregory; which were luminous by night, says Rufinus; and at other times of a dark colour, says Theodoret ; and would not wash out, adds Socrates. In consequence the attempt was abandoned| (Newman, Essay on Miracles in Early Eccl. Hist. p. clxxvii.). All these incidents present a picture consistent with the extraordinary operations of the forces of nature. Even for the luminous crosses there are curious parallels in the history of storms of lightning and volcanic eruptions (see those collected by Warburton and quoted by Newman, p. clxxxii. notes). The cross in the sky has its likeness in the effects of mock suns and parhelia. But even so, a Christian may still fairly assert his right to call the event a miraculous interposition of God's providence. It fulfilled all the purposes we can assign to the Scripture miracles. It gave |an impression of the present agency and of the will of God.| It seemed to shew His severe disapproval of the attempt and fulfilled the prophecy of Christ. It came, like the vision of Constantine, at a critical epoch in the world's history. It was, as the heathen poet has it, a |dignus vindice nodus.| All who were present or heard of the event at the time thought it, we may be sure, a sign from God. As a miracle it ranges beside those Biblical miracles in which, at some critical moment, the forces of nature are seen to work strikingly for God's people or against their enemies.

§ 7. Julian's Persian Campaign and Death (Mar.5 to June 27, 363). -- Julian's route into Persia is marked with considerable exactness; the first part of it by a letter which he wrote to Libanius from Hierapolis (Ep.27). At Beroea, the modern Aleppo, he |conversed with the senate on matters of religion -- all praised my discourse, but few only were convinced by it| (Ep.27, p.399 D).

At Batnae (the scenery of which he compared to that of Daphne) he found ostentatious preparations for sacrifice upon the public roads, but thought them too obviously studied and too redolent of personal flattery. Leaving Edessa on his left hand, probably as a city too distinctly Christian to be visited with comfort, he had reached Carrhae, a place of vigorous pagan traditions, on Mar.19. At some distance from the town there was a famous temple of the Moon, in which it was worshipped both as a male and a female deity, and near which the emperor Caracalla had been murdered (Herodian. iv.13, 3; Spartian. Caracallus, 6, 6; 7, 3). Julian made a point of visiting it and offered sacrifices |according to the local rites.| Of his secret doings in this temple there are different accounts. Ammianus had heard that he invested his relative Procopius, who was his only companion, with his paludamentum, and bid him seize the empire in case he died in the campaign on which they were engaged (Aram. xxiii.3, 2). Among Christians a report was current that he offered a human sacrifice. The story ran that he sealed up the temple and ordered it not to be opened till his return: and that after the news of his death people entered it and found a woman hanging by the hair of her head, and her body cut open as if to search for omens (Theod. iii.26).

On Mar.27 he was at Callinicum and celebrated the festival of the Mother of the Gods (Amm. xxiii.3, 7). At the beginning of Apr. he came to Circesium (Carchemish) at the junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates. Here he received distressing letters from his friend Sallustius in Gaul, urging him to give up his campaign as he felt sure that the gods were unfavourable (Amm. xxiii.5, 6). At Zaitham (where Ammianus first begins to speak in the first person) they saw the high mound which marked the burial-place of the emperor Gordian. The historian records numerous portents on their march; among them, a lion which appeared at Dura gave rise to a curious dispute between the Etruscan augurs and the philosophers who followed in his train. The former shewed from their books that it was an ill omen; the latter (amongst whom were Maximus and Priscus) had historical precedents to prove that it need not be so regarded. A similar dispute occurred next day as to the meaning of a thunderstorm (xxiii.5, 10 seq.). Such superstitious discussions were not likely to embolden the soldiery; but Julian decided in favour of the philosophers, animated the army with his own courage, and tried to dispel the prejudice that the Romans had never invaded Persia with success. One of his most important officers, Hormisdas (elder brother of Sapor, the reigning king of Persia), had angered the nobles of his country by threats, had been imprisoned by them, and escaped to the court of Constantine. He became apparently a sincere Christian, yet remained a useful and trusted officer of Julian: By his intervention several Assyrian towns opened their gates to the invaders (xxiv.1, 6, etc.). The country was inundated by the natives, and it required all Julian's inventive quickness and personal example to carry the army through the marshes. After various successes he arrived at the bank of the Tigris, at the ruins of the old Greek city of Seleucia opposite Ctesiphon. He forced the passage of the river by a very vigorous and dangerous movement in the face of the enemy, and found himself under the walls of the capital (xxiv.6, 4-14). But no threats or sarcasms could draw the inhabitants from their impregnable defences, and Sapor himself made no appearance. Part of the Roman army had been left in Mesopotamia, where the two ambitious generals, Procopius and Sebastianus, fell out, and the support expected from Arsaces was not forthcoming. But though Sapor did not appear to give battle, he sent a secret ambassador with offers of an honourable peace, the exact terms of which are unknown to us (Liban. Epit. p.608; Socr. iii.21; Ammianus is here defective). These Julian declined, against. the advice of Hormisdas. He was fired with all sorts of vague and enthusiastic projects; he longed to visit the plain of Arbela and to overrun the whole Persian empire (Liban. Epit. p.609). These ideas were kindled into action by the arts of a certain Persian noble, who pretended to be a deserter, indignant against his sovereign, but who in reality played the part of a second Zopyrus (Greg. Naz. Or.5, 11, p.154; cf. Aurel. Victor. Epit.67; Soz. vi.1, p.218). Julian's fleet presented a difficulty, and he determined upon the hazardous measure of burning it, except a very few vessels, which were to be placed on wheels. This was done at Abuzatha, where he halted five days (Zos. iii.26). A short time of reflection and a discovery that his Persian informants were deceiving him made him regret his decision. He attempted too late to save some of the ships. Only twelve out of some 1,100 were still uninjured. What had been intended to be a triumphant progress almost insensibly became a retreat. The Persian cavalry were perpetually harassing the outskirts of the army, and though beaten at close quarters were continually appearing in fresh swarms. The few ships that remained were insufficient to build a bridge by which to open communications with Mesopotamia. Nothing was left but to proceed along the E. bank of the Tigris to the nearest friiendly province, Corduene in S. Armenia, as quickly as possible. This was determined on June 16, only ten days before the death of Julian (Amm. xxiv.8, 5). How far he had previously penetrated into the interior is not easy to determine. In the next few days the Romans fought several battles with success, but not such as to ensure them a quiet march forwards. They suffered from want of food, and Julian shared their privations on an equality with the commonest soldier (Amm. xxv.2, 2). On the night of June 25, as he was studying some book of philosophy in his tent, he had a vision (as he told his intimates) of the Genius of the Republic leaving his tent in a mournful attitude, with a veil over his head and over the cornucopia in his hand -- reminding him by contrast of his vision of the night before he was proclaimed Augustus. He shook off his natural terror, and went out into the night air to offer propitiatory sacrifices, when he received another shock from the appearance of a brilliant meteor, which he: interpreted as a sign of the wrath of Mars, whom he had already offended (xxv.2, 4; cf. xxiv.6, 17). When day dawned the Etruscan diviners implored him to make no movement that day, or at least to put off his march for some hours. But his courage had returned with daylight, and he gave the order to advance. Sudden attacks of the enemy from different quarters threw the army into confusion, and Julian, excited by the danger, rushed forward without his breastplate, catching up a shield as he went. As he raised his hands above his head to urge his men to pursue, a cavalry spear from an unknown hand grazed his arm and lodged in his right side. He tried to draw out the spear-head, but the sharp edges cut his fingers. He threw up his hand with a convulsive motion, and fell fainting from his horse (xxv.3, 7, compared with other accounts), uttering a cry which is differently reported. Some said he threw his own blood towards heaven with the bitter words, |O Galilean, Thou hast conquered!| (Theod. iii.25). Others thought they heard him reproach the gods, and especially the Sun, his patron, for their desertion (Philost. vii.15; Soz. vi.2). He was borne to his tent and his wound dressed, no doubt by his friend Oribasius. For a moment he revived, and called for a horse and arms, but a gush of blood shewed how weak he really was. On learning that the place was called Phrygia he gave up all hope, having been told by some diviner that he should die in Phrygia. He addressed those who stood around him in a highly philosophic speech in the style of Socrates, of which Ammianus has preserved a report. He considered that death was sent him as a gift from the gods. He knew of no great faults he had committed either in a private station or as Caesar. He had always desired the good of his subjects, and had endeavoured to be a faithful servant of the republic. He had long known the decree of fate, that his death was impending, and thanked the supreme God that it came, not in a disgraceful or painful way, but in a glorious form. He would not discuss the appointment of his successor, lest he should pass over one who was worthy, or endanger the life of some one whom he thought fit, but hoped that the republic would find a good ruler after him. He then distributed his personal effects to his intimate friends, and asked among others for Anatolius, the master of the offices. Sa!lustius (the prefect of the East) replied that he was happy. Julian understood that he had fallen, but lamented the death of his friend with a natural feeling which he had restrained in thinking of his own. Those who stood round could no longer restrain their grief, but he still kept his habit of command, and rebuked them for their want of high feeling. |My life gives me confidence of being taken to the islands of the blest, to have converse with heaven and the stars; it is mean to weep as if I had deserved to be condemned to Tartarus | (Liban. Epit. p.614, epetima tois te Hallois, kai ouch hekista (tois philosophois) ei ton bebiomenon auton eis makaron nesous agonton, hoi de hos axios tartarou bebiokota dakruousin: Amm. xxv.3, 22, |humile esse caelo sideribusque conciliatum lugeri principem dicens|). His last moments were spent in a difficult discussion with Maximus and Priscus on |the sublimity of souls.| In the midst of this debate his wound burst afresh, and he called for a cup of cold water, drank it, and passed away quietly at midnight on the evening of June 26, having not yet reached the age of 32 (Amm. xxv.3, 23; 5, 1; Socr. iii.21, etc.).

It was never found out who threw the fatal spear, though the Persians offered a reward. The suggestion of Libanius that it was a Christian was such as he would naturally make in his bitterness (Epit. pp.612, 614). Gregory, Socrates, and Rufinus consider it uncertain whether it was a Persian or one of his own soldiers (Greg. Or. v.13, p.155; Ruf. i.36; Socr. iii.21). Sozomen notices the suspicion of Libanius, and defends it in a spirit which cannot but be condemned (Soz. vi.1).

The news of Julian's death and that the army had elected a Christian, Jovian, to succeed him caused enormous rejoicings, especially in Antioch. Jovian was obliged to make peace by ceding the five Mesopotamian provinces, including Nisibis, which had been the bulwark of the empire in the East. Procopius was ordered to carry back the body to Tarsus, where it was interred with pagan ceremonies opposite that of Maximinus Daïa.

Character. -- Julian's story leaves the impression of a living man far more than that of most historical personages. The most opposite and unexpected estimates of him have been formed. He has been admired and pitied by religious-minded men, detested and satirized by sceptics and atheists. His own friend Ammianus despised his superstition, and paints it in terms not much weaker than the invectives of Gregory and Chrysostom; Gibbon sneers at him alternately with his Christian opponents. A. Comte wished to appoint an annual day for execrating his memory in company with that of Bonaparte, as one of the |two principal opponents of progress,| and as the |more insensate| of the two (System of Positive Polity, Eng. trans. vol. i. p.82; an ordinance afterwards withdrawn, ib. vol. iv. p.351). Strauss treats him as a vain, reactionary dreamer, comparable to medievalists who tried to stay the march of modern thought. On the other hand, pietistic historians like Arnold, Neander, and even Ullmann, unlike the ancient writers of the church, are tolerant and favourable.

The simple reason of this divergence is, of course, that the strongest force working in him was a self-confident religious enthusiasm, disguised under the form of self-surrender to a divine mission. Such a character constantly appears in different lights, and some of those who have judged him have looked chiefly at the sentimental side of his life, without considering his actions; while others have estimated him by his actions apart from his principles -- the more so because he was inconsistent himself in his conduct, and sometimes acted with, sometimes against, his principles; and hence any one who chooses to take a partial view may easily find a justification in the positive statements of this or that historian, or of Julian himself.

A Christian who attempts to judge Julian without prejudice will probably go through several phases of opinion before he comes to a final estimate. All but the cold-hearted will sympathize, to some extent at least, with his religious enthusiasm, and with the sacrifices which he was ready to make in its behalf. It is impossible to doubt that he had a vein of noble sentiment, and a lofty and, in many ways, unselfish ambition. He had a real love of ideal beauty, and of the literary and artistic traditions of the past. There was something even pathetic in his hero-worship and his attachment to those whom he supposed to be his friends. If he was often pedantic and imitative, if he had a somewhat shallow and conceited manner, yet we must confess that much of this was the vice of the age, and this pettiness was thrown off in critical moments. Under strong excitement he often became simple, great, and natural.

Or again, many persons will sympathize with his conservative instincts, and his wish to retain what was great in the culture and art of past ages; while others will be attracted by his mystic speculations and ascetic practices, which were akin to much that has been valued and admired in many great names in the history of the church. But on reflection we see that all this was combined with a ruling spirit and view of things which was essentially heathen, and therefore fundamentally defective, as well as antagonistic, to all that we hold dearest and most vital. Julian was at bottom thoroughly one-sided. He was enthusiastic and even passionate in his religion; but it was the passion of the intellect and senses rather than of the heart.

Much of his natural warmth of feeling had been chilled and soured by the sense of injustice and secret enmity under which he so long laboured. He could not forget the murder of his nearest relations, nor the suspicions, intrigues, and actual personal indignities of which he was the subject. What we know of his early surroundings inclines us to suppose that their influence for good was but slight. His relation, Eusebius of Nicomedia, does not bear a high character. His pedagogue Mardonius was evidently more heathen than Christian in his sympathies, and a time-serving creature like Hecebolius was not likely to make much impression upon his pupil.

We have endeavoured to give a fair general estimate of this remarkable character, with the full consciousness how hazardous such an estimate is. If any one wishes for a catalogue of qualities, which can, as it were, be ticketed and labelled, be cannot do better than read Ammianus's elaborate award (xxv.4). The historian takes the four cardinal virtues -- temperance, prudence, justice, and courage -- and gives a due amount of praise tempered with some fault-finding under each head. His chastity and abstinence were remarkable. He aimed at justice, and to a great extent earned a high reputation for it. He was liberal to his friends, and careless of his own comforts and conveniences in a very remarkable degree; while he did much to lighten and equalize the burden of taxation upon his subjects. His successes in Gaul gained him the affection of the people, and his popularity with the soldiers may be gathered from the manner in which the dwellers in northern and western lands followed him into the midst of Persia. He may be said to have quelled a military tumult by the threat of retiring into private life. The lighter qualities of his character present him in rather a disagreeable aspect. He was loquacious and inconsistent in small things and in great. He was extremely superstitious, and even fanatical in his observance of religious rites, to a degree that made him appear trifling and undignified even to his friends. His manner was obviously irritating, and such as could not inspire respect in his subjects; and, on the other hand, he was too eager to gain popular applause. No one can doubt his cleverness and ability as a writer, but the greater number of his writings do not shew method, and they are often singularly deficient in judgment. An exception, perhaps, may be made in respect to the first oration to Constantius, the letter to the Athenians, and the Caesars. The latter, however, was a strange performance for one who was himself an emperor.

In person he was rather short, and awkwardly though very strongly built. His features were fine and well-marked, and his eyes very brilliant; his mouth was rather over-large and his lower lip inclined to droop. As a young man he grew a beard, but was required to cut it off when he became Caesar, and seems only to have grown it again after taking possession of
Constantinople. At Antioch it was allowed to grow to a great size. His neck was thick, and his head hung forward, and was set on broad and thick shoulders. His walk was ungraceful; and he had an unsteady motion of the limbs. There is a fine life-size statue of Julian, of good and artistic workmanship, in the ruined hall of his palace in the garden of the Hôtel Clugny at Paris. It is figured as the frontispiece to E. Talbot's translation of his works.

Theory of Religion. -- Julian's theory was too superficial and occasional to leave much mark upon the history of thought. His book against Christianity became indeed a favourite weapon with infidels, but he never founded a school of positive belief. He was, in fact, an enthusiastic amateur, who employed some of the nights of a laborious career of public business in writing brilliant essays in the neo-Platonic manner. He tells us that the oration in praise of the Sun took him three nights; that on the Mother of the Gods was composed, |without taking breath, in the short space of one night.| Such work may astonish us even now, but it is not surprising that it should be incomplete, rambling, and obscure.

There are, however, certain constantly recurring thoughts which may be regarded as established principles with Julian. Julian forms one of that long line of remarkable men in the first four centuries after Christ who endeavoured to give a rational form to the religion and morality of the heathen world in opposition to the growing power of Christianity -- men whose ill-success is one of the strongest proofs of the deadness of their own cause, and the vitality of that against which they strove. Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Celsus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Hierocles were in this sense precursors of Julian. We may define the objects of their efforts on behalf of paganism as:

(1) To unite popular beliefs in many gods with some conception of the unity of the divine being, and to give some consistent, if not rational, account of the origin of the world and of the course of human history.

(2) To defend the myths and legends of heathenism, and generally to establish heathen morals on a higher basis than mere custom.

(3) To satisfy the yearnings of the soul for the knowledge of God, while rejecting the exclusive claims of the Jewish and Christian revelation.

(1) Doctrine as to the Nature of God. -- The birth of Christ took place in the fulness of time, i.e. when mankind had been prepared for it, by many influences bearing them towards the acceptance of a revelation. One of the most important of these preparations was the movement towards monotheism. The old simple belief in many gods living together in a sort of upper world was gone, and thinking men would accept no system which did not assume the supremacy of one divine principle, and in some degree |justify | the action of Providence in dealing with mankind as a whole. But the worship of many gods had too deep a hold upon the fancy and affections, as well as the mind, of the people to be surrendered without a long struggle, and various methods were advanced to shelter and protect the current belief. The systems thus formed were naturally all more or less pantheistic, finding unity in an informal abstraction from the phenomena of nature. But, as we should expect to be the case on European soil, they were neither logically pantheistic in the abstract way of the Hindu philosophical sects nor sharply dualistic like the speculations of the Gnostics and Manicheans. The more practical minds of the Graeco-Roman world were satisfied to give an account of things as they appeared without overpowering and paralyzing themselves by the insoluble question as to the existence and potencies of matter; and thus they were at once more inconsistent and less absurd than some of their contemporaries. While looking upon matter as something degrading, and upon contact with it as a thing to be avoided, they nevertheless did not define matter to be non-existent, or merely phenomenal, nor did they regard it as absolutely evil. In the same way, while they lost all true hold upon the personality of God, and believed in the eternity of the world (e.g. Jul. Or. iv. p.132 C), they used the terms creation and providence, and spoke of communion with and likeness to God. Into an eclectic system of this kind it was not difficult to incorporate the gods of the heathen world, and to make them subserve a sort of philosophy of history. With Julian they take a double position: (a) as intermediate beings employed in creation who protect the Supreme Being from too intimate contact with the world; (b) as accounting for the difference between nations, and so enabling men to uphold traditional usages without ceasing to hold to one ideal law and one truth (Jul.Or. vi. p.184 C, hosper gar aletheia mia, houto de kai philosophia mia).

The chief source of information on this part of Julian's theory is his Fourth Oration, in praise of the Sovereign Sun. The most striking feature of the theology proper of this system is its triple hierarchy of deities and worlds. Such a triple division was a common feature of neo-Platonism and had its roots in thoughts current before the Christian era; but it was no doubt emphasized by later theorists as a counterpoise to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. That of Julian was probably borrowed from Iamblichus of Chalcis (uncle, it has been supposed, of his correspondent), to whom he frequently appeals in terms of the highest veneration (e.g. Or. iv. p.146 A, 150 D, 157 D; see Ueberweg, Hist. of Philosophy, § 69, vol. i. pp.252-254, Eng. trans.).

According to this belief there are three worlds informed and held together by three classes of divine beings. The highest and most spiritual is the kosmos noeros, or |intelligible world,| the world of absolute immaterial essences, the centre of which is the One or the Good, who is the source of beings and of all beauty and perfection to the gods who surround him (p.133 C). Between this highly elevated region and the grosser material world comes the kosmos noeros, or |intelligent world,| the centre of which is the sovereign sun, the great object of Julian's devotion. He receives his power from the Good, and communicates it not only to the gods around him, but also to the sensible world, the kosmos aisthetos, in which we live. In this sphere the |visible disk| of the sun is the source of light and life, as the invisible sun is in the intelligible world. Any one who will read this oration with care will be convinced that Julian wished to find in his sovereign sun a substitute for the Christian doctrine of the second person of the blessed Trinity, and this appears in particular on pp.141,142 (cf. Naville, p.104; Lamé, pp.234 ff.). The position specially given to the sun is a proof of the advance of Oriental thought in the Roman empire, and it was certainly no new idea of Julian's. Amongst others, Aurelian and Elagabalus had made him their chief divinity, and Constantine himself had been specially devoted to the |Sol invictus.| Julian, we have seen, had from his childhood been fascinated with the physical beauty of the light. Towards the close of the century we find Macrobius arguing somewhat in the spirit of some modern inquirers that all heathen religion is the product of solar myths. Yet it is curious to observe the shifts to which Julian is put to prove this doctrine out of Homer and Hesiod, and from the customs of the ancient Greeks and Romans (pp.135-137 and 148 ff.). He seems, indeed, conscious of the weakness of his arguments from the poets, and dismisses them with the remark that they have much that is human in their inspiration, and appeals to the directer revelations of the gods themselves -- we must suppose in the visions which he claimed to receive (p.137 c).

The connexion of this theory with the national gods is nowhere distinctly worked out. It is, in fact, part of the pantheistic character of this belief, that the idea of the personality of the gods recedes or becomes prominent, like the figures in a magic lantern, according to the subject under discussion, without any shock to the dreamy neo-Platonist. At one time they are mere essences or principles, at another they are Zeus, Apollo, Ares, etc., ruling and directing the fortunes of nations, and imposing upon them a peculiar type of character and special laws and institutions. At one moment they are little more than the ideas of Plato, at another they are actual daimones, acting as lieutenants of the Creator. This last view is in essentials the same as that put forward by Celsus (probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius) in his book, known to us from its refutation by Origen (bk. v. cc.25-33). It is the view asserted at length by Julian in his books against the Christians, especially as a defence of the customs and institutions of antiquity against the innovations of the religion which strove to break down all prejudices of class and nation. (St. Cyril. adv. Jul. iv. pp.115, 116, 130, 141, 143, 148, etc.; cf. Fragmentum Epistolae, p.292 C, D, anthropoi tois genearchais theois apoklerothentes, ohi kai proegagon autous, apo tou demiourgou tas psuchas paralambanontes ex aionos; for the subject generally, see Naville, c. iii. |Les Dieux Nationaux.|) It is easy to see how fatal such a doctrine must be to moral progress. If everything is as it is by the will of the gods, no custom, however revolting, lacks defence. It is strange that, after the refutation of this absurdity by Origen, any one should have been bold enough to put it forward as a serious theory (cf. Orig. contra Celsum, v. cc.25-28 and 34-39).

With regard to the relation of images and sacrifices to the gods, who are worshipped by these means, there is an interesting passage in the Fragment of the Letter to a Priest (pp.293 ff.). He warns his correspondent not to consider images as actually receiving worship, nor to suppose that the gods really need our sacrifices. But he defends their use as suitable to our own bodily condition epeide gar hemas ontas en somati somatikas edei poieisthai tois theois kai tas latreias, asomatoi de eisin autoi, p.293 D). |Just as earthly kings desire to have honour paid them and their statues without actually needing it, so do the gods. The images of the gods are not the gods, and yet more than mere wood and stone. They ought to lead us up to the unseen. And yet being made by human art, they are liable to injury at the hands of wicked men, just as good men are unjustly put to death like Socrates, and Dion, and Empedotimus. But their murderers afterwards were punished by divine vengeance, and so have sacrilegious persons manifestly received a due reward in my reign| (pp.294 C to 295 B).

(2) Defence of Pagan Morality. -- We have already described at some length Julian's attempts to raise the morality of his heathen subordinates, especially in the priesthood. He was conscious of a defect, and strenuously set himself to remedy it, though he could do little more in the way of quotation of texts than allege a few general maxims drawn from ancient writings as to kindness to the poor, etc. His strongest argument is one that might well have made him hesitate -- the shame of being so much outdone by the |Galileans.| Another branch of this subject was the relation of morality to Greek mythology, and with this he busied himself on two occasions, about the same time. The two orations, The Praise of the Mother of the Gods and Against the Cynic Heraclius, were probably both delivered about the time of the vernal equinox, while he was still at Constantinople, A.D.362. In the first of these he gives an elaborate explanation of the story of Attis; in the second he rebukes Heraclius for his immoral teaching in the form of myths, and gives an example of one which he thinks really edifying, which describes his own youth under the protection of the gods.

The explanation of the myth of Attis is important as a specimen of Julian's theology. According to modern interpreters, this myth, as well as that of Adonis in its hundred forms, describes merely the succession of the seasons; Julian adapts it to his speculations on the triple hierarchy of worlds. With him the mother of the gods is the female principle of the highest and most spiritual world. He calls her the lady of all life, the mother and bride of great Zeus, the motherless virgin, she who bears children without passion, and creates things that are together with the father (p.166 A, B). Here we are landed into the full obscurity of Gnostic principles and emanations, and the whole story is evidently only a kind of converse arrangement of that which meets us in the Valentinian myth of Achamoth (see Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, lects.11, 12). Attis is a principle of the second or intelligent world, |the productive and creative intelligence, the essence which descends into the farthest ends of matter to give birth to all things| (p.161 c). It is difficult to see how he is distinguished in his functions with regard to creation from the sovereign sun, but this is only one of the many weak points of this fanciful exposition. His material type in the lowest world is the Milky Way, in which philosophers say that the impassible circumambient ether mingles with the passible elements of the world (p.165 c). The mother of the gods engages Attis to remain ever faithful to herself, that is, to look always upward. Instead of this, he descends into the cave, and has commerce with the nymph, that is, produces the visible universe out of matter. The sun, who is the principle of harmony and restraint, something like the Valentinian Horus (horos), sends the lion or fiery principle to put a stop to this production of visible forms. Then follows the eptome of Attis, which is defined as the epoche tes apeirias, the limit placed upon the process into infinity. The part played by the sun is indicated by the season at which the festival took place, the vernal equinox, when he produces equality of day and night (p.168 C, D). All this is explained as a mere passionless eternal procedure on the part of the supposed gods. A real creation proceeding from God's love and good pleasure was a thought far above the scope of this philosophy, to which the world was as personal as the so-called gods.

Enough has been said to shew how thoroughly pantheistic was Julian's interpretation of the myths; how destructive of any true conception of the divine nature, how thoroughly unmoral, how utterly incapable of touching the heart, was his theology. Yet he felt the need of some personal commerce with God, however inconsistent such a wish was with his intellectual view of divine things.

(3) Intercourse with God. -- When Julian was in Asia Minor under the influence of the philosophers Eusebius and Chrysanthius, and heard the details of the wonderful works of Maximus, he said (according to Eunapius), |Farewell, and keep to your books if you will; you have revealed to me the man I was in search of| (Eunap. Vita Maxima, p.51). This story has been discredited by some, who think it strange that so great a lover of books as Julian should speak slightingly of them. But it is confirmed by his own language in his Oration on the Sun (p.137 C): |Let us say farewell to poetic descriptions; for they have much that is human mixed up with the divine. But let us go on to declare what the god himself seems to teach us both about himself and the other gods| (ix. II, 5). Julian here appeals from a book revelation, as it were, to a direct instruction given him in the numerous visions in which he was visited by the gods.

We have already noticed Julian's enthusiasm for the mysteries and his love of all rites and practices which promised a closer intercourse with the gods. He could never bring himself to acquiesce in the colder methods of some of the masters of the neo-Platonic school. He was not satisfied with the intellectual ecstasy described by Plotinus, nor with the self-purification of Porphyry, who generally rejected sacrifice and damnation (Ueberweg, Hist. of Philosophy, § 68, notes, vol. i. p.251, Eng. trans.). The party of Iamblichus, to which Julian belonged, required something approaching a control of a god (theurgy), a quasi-mechanical method of communication with him, which could be put in force at will, and the result of which could only be called a |Bacchic frenzy| (Or. vii. pp.217 D and 221 D, etc.). Julian was duped by men who were half deceivers and half deceived. He is one among many who are forced by an inward conviction to believe in supernatural revelation, but who will only have it on their own terms. Libanius tells us that Julian knew the forms and lineaments of the gods as familiarly as those of his friends, and we have mentioned the visions which appeared to him at great crises of his life. He himself says, |Aesculapius often healed me, telling me of remedies| (St. Cyril. adv. Jul. viii. p.234), and elsewhere he speaks of this deity as a sort of incarnate Saviour (Or. iv. p.144 B, C). This temper of mind, while it speaks in high-flown, positive language of the knowledge of God and pours contempt on the uninitiated, yet means something by |knowledge| very different from the sober and bracing certainty attained by Christian faith, hope, and love. Here, as elsewhere, the pantheistic temper speaks grandly, but feels meanly. Death indeed is looked forward to with some composure as the emancipation of the divine element in man from darkness. Julian several times prays for a happy death, and expected after it to be raised to communion with the gods. His orations to the Sun and the Mother of the Gods both conclude with such prayers, and we have seen how he actually met his end (Liban. Ep. p.614; Amm. xxv.3, 22). But the doctrine of the ascent (sublimitas) of souls, on which he was conversing with Maximus and Priscus when that end came, was a very different thing from the Christian's hope. It was, in fact, the same in substance as the barren and deadening Oriental doctrine of transmigration; and it is remarkable that Julian, who felt himself so favoured by the heavenly powers, in one of his most ardent prayers to the sun, looks forward to a felicity which has no certainty of being eternal (Or. iv. p.158 C; see some good remarks on the contrast between this and the Christian doctrine in Naville, pp.59 ff.).

Julian's Polemic against Christianity. -- How near measures against Christianity were to his heart may be seen in his prayer to the Mother of the Gods, where he speaks of |cleansing the empire from the stain of atheism| as the great wish of his life (Or. v. p.18O B). He preferred, however, the method of persuasion to that of constraint, and his books against the Christians are an evidence of this temper. He begins by saying that he wishes to give the reasons which have convinced him that the Galilean doctrine is a human invention (Cyr. ii. p.39). He then goes on to attack the narratives of the Bible as fabulous. He allows that the Greeks have monstrous fables likewise (p.44), but then they have philosophy, while Christians have nothing but the Bible, and are in fact barbarians. If Christians attack the idolatry of heathens, Julian retorts, |you worship the wood of the cross, and refuse to worship the ancile which came down from heaven| (Cyr. vi. p.194). On the whole, he does not spend much time in such questions, but accepts the Bible as a generally true narrative, and rather attacks Christianity on grounds of supposed reason, and in connexion with and in contrast to Judaism.

We may follow Naville in considering the main body of his works under three heads: (1) his polemic against the monotheism of the O.T.; (2) his attack upon the novel and aggressive character of Christian doctrine; (3) especially against the adoration of Christ as God, and the worship of |dead men,| such as the martyrs (cf. Naville, pp.175 ff.).

(1) Against the Monotheism of the O.T. -- Julian regarded. the gods of polytheism as links or intermediaries between the supreme God and the material world, and so as rendering the conception of creation easier and more philosophical. He contrasts Plato's doctrine of creation in the Timaeus with the abrupt statements of Moses, |God said,| etc. (pp.49-57). One might almost suppose (he urges) that Moses imagined God to have created nothing incorporeal, no intermediate spiritual or angelic beings, but to have Himself directly organized matter (p.49). He proceeds to argue against the supposition that the supreme God made choice of the Hebrew nation as a peculiar people to the exclusion of others. |If He is the God of all of us, and our common creator, why has He abandoned us?| (p.106). Both in acts and morals the Hebrews are inferior. They have been always in slavery, and have invented nothing. As for morality, the imitation of God amongst the Jews is the imitation of a |jealous God,| as in the case of Phinehas (Cyr. v. pp.160-171). The worst of our generals never treated subject nations so cruelly as Moses treated the Canaanites (vi. p.184). The only precepts in the Decalogue not held in common by all nations are the commandments against idolatry and for the observance of the Sabbath. The true view, to his mind, was that the God of the Jews was a local, national god, like those of other peoples, far inferior to the supreme God (iv. pp.115, 116, 141, 148, etc.). Sometimes he seems inclined to accept Jehovah as the creator of the visible world, while at other times he throws doubt upon this assumption; but in any case he considered Him a true object of worship (Ep.25, Judaeis. But in Cyril. iv. p.148 he blames Moses for confounding a partial and national god with the Creator). Further, the Jewish usages of temples, altars, sacrifices, purifications, circumcision, etc., were all observed to have a close resemblance to those of heathenism, and were a foundation for many reproaches against the Galileans, who had abandoned so much that was laudable and respectable (vi. p.202; vii. p.238; ix. pp.298, 299, 305, etc.).

(2) Julian's Attack upon Christianity as a Novel and Revolutionary Religion. -- In the same spirit he puts Christianity much below Judaism. |If you who have deserted us had attached yourself to the doctrines of the Hebrews, you would not have been in so thoroughly bad a condition, though worse than you were before when you were amongst us. For you would have worshipped one God instead of many gods, and not, as is now the case, a man, or rather a number of miserable men. You would have had a hard and stern law, with much that is barbarous in it, instead of our mild and gentle customs, and would have been so far the losers; but you would have been purer and more holy in religious rites. As it is, you are like the leeches, and suck all the worst blood out of Hebraism and leave the purer behind| (Cyr. vi. pp.201, 202). It was thus natural that St. Paul should be the special object of his dislike. |He surpasses all the impostors and charlatans who have ever existed | (Cyr. iii. p.100). Julian accuses the Jewish Christians of having deserted a law which Moses declared to be eternal (ix. p.319). Even Jesus Himself said that He came to fulfil the law. Peter declared that he had a vision, in which God showed him that no animal was impure (p.314), and Paul boldly says, |Christ is the end of the law|; but Moses says, |Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it| ; and |Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things| (Cyr. ix. p.320 = Deut. iv.2, xxvii.27; cf. x. pp.343, 351, 354, 356, 358, where he attacks Christians for giving up sacrifice, circumcision, and the Sabbath, and asserts that Abraham used divination and practised astrology). He sneers at baptism, which cannot cure any bodily infirmity, but is said to remove all the transgressions of the soul -- adulteries, thefts, etc. -- so great is its penetrating power! (vii. p.245). The argument against the Christian interpretation of prophecy is also remarkable. He comments textually on the blessing of Judah, Gen. xlix.10; on the prophecy of Balaam, Num. xxiv.17; on that of Moses, Deut. xviii.15-18; and on that of Emmanuel, Is. vii.14; and tries to shew that they have no reference outside Judaism itself, though the last is evidently a difficulty to him (pp.253, 261, 262).

(3) The Worship of Jesus as God and the Adoration of the Martyrs are the great objects of Julian's attacks. His argument is partly concerned with the prophecies just quoted, partly with the N.T. itself. He asserts that Moses never speaks of |the first-born Son of God,| while he does speak of |the sons of God,| i.e. the angels, who have charge of different nations (Gen. vi.2). But Moses says expressly, |Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve| (Cyr. ix. p.290). Even if the prophecy of Emmanuel in Is. refers to Jesus, it gives you no right to call His mother theotokos. How could she bear God, being a human creature like ourselves? And how is her son the Saviour when God says, |I am, and there is no Saviour beside Me?| (viii. p.276).

|John began this evil. You have gone on and added the worship of other dead men to that of the first dead man. You have filled all things with tombs and sepulchres; though Jesus speaks of 'whited sepulchres full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness'| (p.335). |Why, then, do you bow before tombs? The Jews did it, according to Isaiah, to obtain visions in dreams, and four apostles also probably did so after their master's death| (p.339). (The reference is to Is. lxv.4, |which remain among the graves and lodge among the monuments|: the words di enupnia are added in the Greek version.) In his letter to the Alexandrians he puts with equal force the folly of adoring a man, and not adoring the sun and the moon, especially the former, the great sun, the living, animated, intelligent, and beneficent image of the intelligible or spiritual Father (Ep.51. p.434). It is strange to find this slighting disregard for men as objects of worship in one who assumed that he was a champion of pure Hellenism, especially in an emperor who succeeded a long line of deified emperors. A great deal of his dislike to what he considered the Christian doctrine arose, doubtless, from aristocratic pride. He looked down upon Christ as a Galilean peasant, a subject of Augustus Caesar (Cyr. vi. p.213). |It is hardly three hundred years since He began to be talked about. During all His life He did nothing worth recording, unless any one reckons it among very great acts to have cured halt and blind people, and to exorcize demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany| (vi. p.191). He looked upon Christians as parvenus who had assumed a position of power for which they were not fitted, and exercised it wantonly in destroying temples and prosecuting their own heretics, etc. |Jesus and Paul never taught you this. They never expected that Christians would fill so important a place, and were satisfied with converting a few, maidservants and slaves, and by their means to get hold of their mistresses, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. If under the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius they have succeeded in convincing a single distinguished person, you may hold me for a liar in every thing| (vi. p.206).

It is remarkable that Julian shews practically no appreciation of the need of redemption or of the contrast between Christian and heathen life. This we must ascribe in great measure to the misfortune of his early training, to the Arianism of his teachers, and the unloveliness and unlovingness of his early surroundings. Some allowance must also be made for the corruption and extravagance of some forms of popular religion, and for the rash and violent acts of fanaticism committed by many Christians. The superstitious cultus of martyrs, for instance, was no doubt disavowed by the highest minds of the 4th cent., such as St. Athanasius and St. Augustine. But in the masses newly converted from paganism it formed a natural centre for much of the old superstition and fanaticism (Athan. Or. cont. Arian. ii.32; August. de Vera Relig.55; and esp. cont. Faustum, xx.21).

But besides all this there was in the family of Constantine generally a hardness and self-assertion, though accompanied with strong religious pressure, which made them inaccessible to Christian feeling on the subject of sin. The members of it believed strongly in their providential vocation to take a great part in religious questions, but were very rarely troubled by scruples as to their personal unworthiness. Julian's own character, as we have seen, was specially inconsistent, but its ruling element was self-confidence, which he disguised to himself as a reliance upon divine direction. In conclusion, we may draw attention to some of Julian's admissions. He accepts the account of the Gospel miracles. He rejects the Gnostic interpretation of St. John, which separated the Word of God from the Christ. He witnesses to the common use of the term theotokos long before the Nestorian troubles. His remarks about martyr-worship and the adoration of the cross have some importance as facts in the history of Christian worship.

On the Coins of Julian see D. C. B. (4 vol. ed.) s.v. We conclude that from policy Julian did not make any general issue of coins with heathen inscriptions or strongly marked heathen symbols which would have shocked his Christian subjects. The statements of Socrates and Sozomen are in perfect harmony with this conclusion.

[J.W.]

Julianus Sabas, an anchorite
Julianus (105) Sabas, Oct.18, an anchorite, whose history Theodoret tells. Sabas or Sabbas, says Theodoret, was a title of veneration, meaning an elder, corresponding with |abbas| or father, commonly applied to anchorites in the East. His cave was in Osrhoëne; he practised extraordinary asceticism and endured extremes of heat and fatigue. In 372, on the expulsion of Meletius, bp. of Antioch, the triumphant Arian party gave out that Julian had embraced their views; whereupon Acacius (subsequently bp. of Berrhoea), accompanied by Asterius, went to Julian and induced him to visit Antioch, where his presence exposed the slander and encouraged the Catholics. He returned to his cave and there died. Theod. H. E. iii.19, iv.24; Hist. Religios. No. ii.; Menol. Grace. Sirlet.; Ceillier, viii.238; Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. ii.700, iii.1084, 1090.

[C.H.]

Julius (5), bishop of Rome
Julius (5), bp. of Rome after Marcus, Feb.6, 337, to Apr.12, 352, elected after a vacancy of four months. His pontificate is specially notable for his defence of Athanasius, and for the canons of Sardica enacted during it. When Julius became pope, Athanasius was in exile at Trèves after his first deposition by the council of Tyre, having been banished by Constantine the Great in 336. Constantine, dying on Whitsunday 337, was succeeded by his three sons, by whose permission Athanasius returned to his see. But the Eusebians continuing their machinations, the restoration of Athanasius was declared invalid; and one Pistus was set up as bp. of Alexandria in his stead. A deputation was now sent to Rome to induce Julius to declare against Athanasius and acknowledge Pistus; but having failed to convince the pope, desired him to convene a general council at which he should adjudicate upon the charges against Athanasius. Socrates (H. E. ii.11) and Sozomen (H. E. iii.7) state that Eusebius wrote to Julius requesting him to judge the case. But this is not asserted by Julius, and is improbable. Julius undertook to hold a council wherever Athanasius chose, and seems to have sent a synodical letter to the Eusebians apprising them of his intention. The dates of the events that followed are not without difficulty.

Early in 340 Pistus had been given up as the rival bishop, and one Gregory, a Cappadocian, violently intruded by Philagrius the prefect of Egypt into the see; and the Lenten services had been the occasion of atrocious treatment of the Catholics of Alexandria. Athanasius, having concealed himself for a time in the neighbourhood and prepared an encyclic in which he detailed the proceedings, seems to have departed for Rome about Easter 340, and to have been welcomed there by Julius, who, after his arrival, sent two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenes, with a letter to Eusebius and his party fixing Dec.340, at Rome, for the proposed synod. The Eusebians refused to come, and detained the envoys of Julius beyond the time fixed. Elpidius and Philoxenes did not return to Rome till Jan.341, bringing then a letter, the purport of which is gathered from the reply of Julius to be mentioned presently. Julius suppressed this letter for some time, hoping that the arrival of some Eusebians in Rome might spare him the pain of making it public, and in this hope he also deferred the assembling of the council. But no one came. The Eusebians now shewed themselves by no means prepared to submit to his adjudication, but took advantage of the dedication of a new cathedral at Antioch to hold a council of their own there, known as the |Dedication council| (probably in Aug.341) and attended by 97 bishops. They prepared canons and three creeds, designed to convince the Western church of their orthodoxy, confirmed the sentence of the council of Tyre against Athanasius, and endeavoured to prevent his restoration by a canon with retrospective force, debarring even from a hearing any bishop or priest who should have officiated after a canonical deposition. Julius meanwhile had made public their letter, and, not yet knowing of the proceedings at Antioch, assembled his council in the church of the presbyter Vito at Rome, apparently in Nov.341, Athanasius being stated to have been then a year and a half in Rome. It was attended by more than 50 bishops. Old and new accusations were considered; the Acts of the council of Tyre, and those of the inquiry in the Mareotis about the broken chalice, which had been left at Rome by the Eusebian envoys two years before, were produced; witnesses were heard in disproof of the charges and in proof of Eusebian atrocities; and the result was the complete acquittal of Athanasius and confirmation of the communion with him, which had never been discontinued by the Roman church. Marcellus of Ancyra, who had been deposed and banished on a charge of heresy by a Eusebian council at Constantinople in 336 and had been 15 months in Rome, was declared orthodox on the strength of his confession of faith which satisfied the council. Other bishops and priests, from Thrace, Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt, are said by Julius in his subsequent synodal letter to have been present to complain of injuries suffered from the Eusebian party. Socrates (H. E. ii.15) and Sozomen (H. E. iii.8) say that all the deposed bishops were reinstated by Julius in virtue of the prerogative of the Roman see, and that he wrote vigorous letters in their defence, reprehending the Eastern bishops and summoning some of the accusers to Rome. But there seems much exaggeration here. Paul certainly, the deposed patriarch of Constantinople (whom Eusebius had succeeded and who is mentioned by Socrates and Sozomen among the successful appellants), was not restored till the death of his rival in 342, and then only for a time and not through the action of Julius; nor did Athanasius regain his see till 346. Indeed, Sozomen himself acknowledges (iii.10) that Julius effected nothing at the time by his letters in favour of Athanasius and Paul, and consequently referred their cause to the emperor Constans. Julius's real attitude and action are best seen in the long letter he addressed to the Easterns at the desire of the Roman council, which has been preserved entire by Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian.21-36). He begins by animadverting strongly on the tone of the letter brought to him by his envoys, which was such, he says, that when he had at last reluctantly shewn it to others they could hardly believe it genuine. His own action had been complained of in the letter. He therefore both defends himself and recriminates: |You object to having your own synodal judgment [that of Tyre] questioned in a second council. But this is no unprecedented proceeding. The council of Nice permitted the re-examination of synodical Acts. If your own judgment were right, you should have rejoiced in the opportunity of having it confirmed; and how can you, of all men, complain, when it was at the instance of your own emissaries, when worsted by the advocates of Athanasius, that the Roman council was convened? You certainly cannot plead the irreversibility of a synodical decision, having yourselves reversed even the judgment of Nice in admitting Arians to communion. If on this ground you complain of my receiving Athanasius, much more may I complain of your asking me to acknowledge Pistus, a man alleged by the envoys of Athanasius to have been condemned as an Arian at Nice and admitted by your own representatives to have been ordained by one Secundus, who had been so condemned. It must have been from chagrin at being so utterly refuted in his advocacy of Pistus that your emissary Macarius fled by night, though in weak health, from Rome.| He next refers sarcastically to an allegation of his correspondents as to the equality of all bishops, made either in justification of their having judged a bp. of Alexandria or in deprecation of the case being referred to Rome. |If, as you write, you hold the honour of all bishops to be equal, and unaffected by the greatness of their sees, this view comes ill from those who have shewn themselves so anxious to get translated from their own small sees to greater ones.| He here alludes to Eusebius himself, who had passed from Berytus to Nicomedia, and thence to Constantinople. Having treated as frivolous their plea of the short time allowed them to get to the Roman council, he meets their further complaint that his letter of summons had been addressed only to Eusebius and his party, instead of the whole Eastern episcopate. |I naturally wrote to those who had written to me.| He adds emphatically, |Though I alone wrote, I did so in the name of, and as expressing the sentiments of, all the Italian bishops.| He then justifies at length his action and that of the Roman council. The letters of accusation against Athanasius had been from strangers living at a distance, and contradicted one another: the testimonies in his favour from his own people, who knew him well, had been clear and consistent. He exposes the false charges about the murder of Arsenius and the broken chalice, and the unfairness of the Mareotic inquiry. He contrasts the conduct of Athanasius, who had come of his own accord to Rome to court investigation, with the unwillingness of his accusers to appear against him. He dwells on the uncanonical intrusion of Gregory the Cappadocian by military force into the Alexandrian see, and on the atrocities committed to enforce acceptance of him. |It is you,| he adds, |who have set at nought the canons, and disturbed the church's peace; not we, as you allege, who have entertained a just appeal, and acquitted the innocent.| After briefly justifying the acquittal of Marcellus from the charge of heresy, he calls upon those to whom he writes to repudiate the base conspiracy of a few and so remedy the wrong done. He points out what would have been the proper course of procedure in case of any just cause of suspicion against the bishops. This part of his letter is important, as shewing his own view of his position in relation to the church at large. |If,| he says, |they were guilty, as you say they were, they ought to have been judged canonically, not after your method. All of us [i.e. the whole episcopate] ought to have been written to, that so justice might be done by all. For they were bishops who suffered these things, and bishops of no ordinary sees, but of such as were founded by apostles personally. Why, then, were you unwilling to write to us [i.e. to the Roman church] especially about the Alexandrian see? Can you be ignorant that this is the custom; that we should be written to in the first place, so that hence [i.e. from this church] what is just may be defined? Wherefore, if a suspicion against the bishop had arisen there [i.e. in Alexandria], it ought to have been referred hither to our church. But now, having never informed us of the case, they wish us to accept their condemnation, in which we had no part. Not so do the ordinances of St. Paul direct; not so do the Fathers teach: this is pride, and a new ambition. I beseech you, hear me gladly. I write this for the public good: for what we have received from the blessed Peter I signify to you.| This language will hardly bear the inferences of Socrates (ii.8, 17) and of Sozomen (iii.10), that, according to church law, enactments made without the consent of the bp. of Rome were held invalid. It certainly implies no claim to exclusive jurisdiction over all churches. All that Julius insists on is that charges against the bishops of great sees ought, according to apostolic tradition and canonical rule, to be referred to the whole episcopate; and that, in the case of a bp. of Alexandria at least, custom gave the initiative of proceedings to the bp. of Rome. In this reference to custom he probably has in view the case of Dionysius of Alexandria, the charges against whom had been laid before Dionysius of Rome. The allegation in the earlier part of his letter of the fathers of Nice having sanctioned the reconsideration of the decisions of synods is more difficult to account for. He may be alluding to the action of the Nicene council in entertaining the case of Arius after he had been synodically condemned at Alexandria. The action of pope Julius appears open to no exception, for if the synod consisted of Westerns only, that was because the Easterns refused to attend it, though Julius had convened it at the suggestion of their own emissaries; and, after all, the Roman synod only confirmed the continuance of communion with Eastern prelates whom it deemed unjustly condemned. It had no power to do more. Still, the action of Julius may have served as a step towards subsequent papal claims of a more advanced kind; and it probably suggested the canons of Sardica, pregnant with results, which will be noticed presently.

Athanasius remained still in Rome, till, in his fourth year of residence there -- probably in the summer of 343 -- he received a summons from Constans, now sole emperor of the West, to meet him at Milan (Athan. Apol. ad Imp. Constantium, 4), about the holding of a new council, at which both East and West should be fully represented. With the concurrence of the Eastern emperor Constantius, this council was summoned at the Moesian town of Sardica on the confines of their empires, probably towards the end of 343. The scheme of united action failed, the Eastern bishops holding a separate synod at Philippopolis. The rest met at Sardica under the venerable Hosius of Cordova. In some editions of the Acts of the council he is designated one of the legates of the Roman see. But this designation seems due only to the desire, which appears in other cases, of assigning the presidency of all councils to the pope. According to Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian.50), Julius was represented by two presbyters, Archidamus and Philoxenes, whose names appear in the signatures to the synodal letter of the council after that of Hosius. Hosius undoubtedly presided, and there is no sign of his having done so as the pope's deputy either in the Acts of the council or in the letter sent to Julius at its close. Nor can the initiative of the council be assigned to Julius, for this is inconsistent with the statement of Athanasius, who calls God to witness that when summoned to Milan he was entirely ignorant of the purpose of the summons, but found that it was because |certain bishops| there had been moving Constans to induce Constantius to allow a general council to be assembled (Apol. ad Imp. Constantium, 4). If Julius had been the mover, it is unlikely that Athanasius, who was with him at Rome, would have been ignorant of the purpose of his summons or would have spoken only of |certain bishops.| The council was convened by the emperors on their own authority, to review the whole past proceedings, whether at Tyre, Antioch, or Rome, without asking the pope's leave or inviting him to take the lead. It confirmed and promulgated anew all the decisions of the Roman council, decreed the restoration of the banished orthodox prelates, and excommunicated the Eusebian intruders. It also passed 21 canons of discipline, 3 being of special historic importance. The extant Acts of the council give them thus. Canon III. (al. III., IV.) |Bp. Osius said: This also is necessary to be added, that bishops pass not from their own province to another in which there are bishops, unless perhaps on the invitation of their brethren there, that we may not seem to close the gate of charity. And, if in any province a bishop have a controversy against a brother bishop, let neither of the two call upon a bishop from another province to take cognizance of it. But, should any one of the bishops have been condemned in any case, and think that he has good cause for a reconsideration of it, let us (if it please you) honour the memory of the blessed Apostle St. Peter, so that Julius, the Roman bishop, be written to by those who have examined the case; and, if he should judge that the trial ought to be renewed, let it be renewed, and let him appoint judges. But, if he should decide that the case is such that what has been done ought not to be reconsidered, what he thus decides shall be confirmed. Si hoc omnibus placet? The synod replied, Placet.| Canon IV. (al. V.) |Bp. Gaudentius said: Let it, if it please you, be added to this decree that when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of bishops who dwell in neighbouring places, and he has proclaimed his intention of taking his case to Rome, no other bishop shall by any means be ordained to his see till the cause has been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.| Canon V. (al. VII.) |Bp. Osius said: It has seemed good to us (placuit) that if any bishop has been accused, and the assembled bishops of his own region have deposed him, and if he has appealed to the bishop of the Roman church, and if the latter is willing to hear him, and considers it just that the inquiry should be renewed, let him deign to write to the bishops of a neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into everything, and give their sentence according to the truth. But if the appellant in his supplication should have moved the Roman bishop to send a presbyter [al. presbyters] 'de suo latere,' it shall be in his [i.e. the Roman bishop's] power to do whatever he thinks right. And if he should decide to send persons having his own authority to sit in judgment with the bishops, it shall be at his option to do so. But if he should think the bishops sufficient for terminating the business, he shall do what approves itself to his most wise judgment.| In these canons we notice, firstly, they were designed to provide what recent events had shewn the need of, and what the existing church system did not adequately furnish -- a recognized court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes. The canons of Nice had provided none beyond the provincial synod, for beyond that the only strictly canonical appeal was to a general council, which could be but a rare event and was dependent on the will of princes. The need was felt of a readier remedy. Secondly, this remedy was provided by giving the Roman bishop the power to cause the judgment of provincial synods to be reconsidered; but only on the appeal of the aggrieved party, and only in certain prescribed ways. He might refuse to interfere, thus confirming the decision of the provincial synod; or he might constitute the bishops of a neighbouring province as a court of appeal; he might further, if requested and if he thought it necessary, send one or more presbyters as his legates to watch the proceedings, or appoint representatives of himself to sit as assessors in the court. But he was not empowered to interfere unless appealed to, or to summon the case to Rome to be heard before himself in synod; still less, of course, to adjudicate alone. Thirdly, it is evident that this course was sanctioned for the first time at Sardica. The canons, on the face of them, were not a confirmation of a traditional prerogative of Rome. The words of Hosius were, |Let us, if it please you, honour the memory of the blessed Apostle St. Peter,| i.e. by conceding this power to the Roman bishop. Fourthly, the power in question was definitely given only to the then reigning pope, Julius, who is mentioned by name; and it has hence been supposed that it was not meant to be given his successors (cf. Richer. Hist. Concil. General. t. i. c.3, § 4). But the arrangement was probably at any rate intended to be permanent, since the need for it and the grounds assigned for it were permanent. Fifthly, since it was the causes of Eastern bishops that led to the enactment, the canons were probably meant to apply to the whole church, and not to the Western only. The Greek canonists, Balsamon and Zonaras, maintain their narrower scope; and it is true that, the council having consisted of Westerns only, they were never accepted by the churches of the East. But though the council of Sardica was not in fact oecumenical, the emperors had intended it to be so, and the Roman canonists call it so in virtue of the general summons. They, however, regard it as an appendage to that of Nice; and probably its canons were from the first added at Rome to those of Nice as supplementary to them, since in the well-known case of Apiarius, the African presbyter (A.D.417), pope Zosimus quoted them as Nicene; and pope Innocent (A.D.402) seems previously to have done the same in defending his appellate jurisdiction over Gaul. In the African case the error was eventually exposed by reference to the copies of the Nicene canons preserved at Constantinople and Alexandria, and the Africans thereupon distinctly repudiated the claims of Rome which rested upon this false foundation. But Boniface and Celestine, the successors of Zosimus, refer to these canons as Nicene, as did Leo I. in 449; and this continued to be the Roman position. The persistence of the popes in quoting them as Nicene after the mistake had been discovered is an early instance of Roman unfairness in support of papal claims. It is further a significant fact that in some Roman copies the name of Sylvester was substituted for that of Julius, as if with an intention of throwing their date back to the Nicene period. The scope also of the canons came in time to be unduly extended, being made to involve the power of the pope to summon at his will all cases to be heard before himself at Rome. Our proper conclusion seems to be that, though probably intended by their framers to bind the whole church, their authority was not really adequate to the purpose; and that the popes afterwards appealed to them unfairly in support of their claims by misrepresenting both their authority and their scope.

At the close of its sittings the council of Sardica addressed letters to the two emperors, to Julius, to the church of Alexandria, to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and an encyclic |to all bishops.| In that to Julius the reason he alleged for not attending -- viz. the necessity of remaining in Rome to guard against the schemes of heretics -- is allowed as sufficient; and he is presumed to have been present in spirit. The documents sent him and the oral report of his emissaries would inform him of what had been done, but it was thought fit to send him also a brief summary: The most religious emperors had permitted the council to discuss anew all past proceedings, and hence the following questions had been considered: (1) The definition of the true faith; (2) The condemnation or acquittal of those whom the Eusebians had deposed; (3) The charges against the Eusebians themselves of having unjustly condemned and persecuted the orthodox. For full information as to the council's decisions he is referred to the letters written to the emperors; and he is directed, rather than requested (|tua autem excellens prudentia disponere debet, ut per tua scripta,| etc.), to inform the bishops of Italy, Sardinia, and Sicily of what had been done, that they might know with whom to hold communion. A list is appended of those excommunicated by the synod. The whole drift of the letter is inconsistent with the council having been convened by the pope himself, or held in his name, or considered dependent on him for ratification of its decrees. He is not even charged with the promulgation of them, except to bishops immediately under his jurisdiction. The only expression pointing to his pre-eminent position is that it would appear to be best and exceedingly fitting (|optimum et valde congruentissimum|) that |the head, that is the see of St. Peter,| should be informed respecting every single province. Nor is there in the letter to the Alexandrians, or in the encyclic to all bishops, any reference to him as having initiated or taken part in the council; only in the latter a passing allusion to the previous council which he (|comminister poster dilectissimus|) had convened at Rome. The letter to Julius is signed, first by Hosius, and then by 58 other bishops, being probably those present at the close of the council. But as many as 284 are given by Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian.49, 50) as having assented to its decrees and signed its encyclic letter. They include, from various parts of the West with a few from the East 78, from Gaul and Britain 34, from Africa 36, from Egypt 94, from Italy 15, from Cyprus 12, from Palestine 15.

Not till Oct.346, some three years after the council, was Athanasius allowed to return to his see. Before that he again visited Rome, and was again cordially received by Julius, who wrote a letter of congratulation to the clergy and laity of Alexandria, remarkable for its warmth of feeling and beauty of expression. He regards the return at last of their beloved bishop after such prolonged affliction as a reward granted to their unwavering affection for him, shewn by their continual prayers and their letters of sympathy that had consoled his exile, as well as to his own faithfulness. He dwells on the holy character of Athanasius, his resoluteness in defence of the faith, his endurance of persecution, his contempt of death and danger. He congratulates them on receiving him back all the more glorious for his long trials and fully proved innocence. He pictures vividly his welcome home by rejoicing crowds at Alexandria. The letter is the more admirable for the absence of all bitterness towards the persecutors.

The only further notice of Julius is of his having received the recantation of Valens and Ursacius, two notable opponents of Athanasius who had been condemned at Sardica. They had already recanted before a synod at Milan, and written a pacific letter to Athanasius; but went also of their own accord, A.D.347, to Rome, and presented a humble apologetic letter to Julius, and were admitted to communion (Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, 26; Hilar. Fragm. i.). Their profession however (in which they owned the falsity of their charges against Athanasius and renounced Arian heresy), proved insincere. For when, after the defeat of Constans in 350 and the defeat of Maxentius in 351, the tide of imperial favour began to turn, they recanted their recantation, which they said had been made only under fear of Constans. But Julius, who died Apr.12, 352, was spared the troublous times which ensued. The fresh charges now got up, and sent to him and the emperor, arrived at Rome too late for him to entertain them. [[333]LIBERIUS.]

His only extant writings are the two letters, to the Eusebians and the Alexandrians, referred to above. Ten decreta are ascribed to him in the collections of Gratian and Ivo. One is interesting for its allusion to certain usages in the celebration of the Eucharist -- viz. using milk, or the expressed juice of grapes, instead of wine; administering the bread dipped in the wine, after the manner of the Greeks at the present day; and using a linen cloth soaked in must, reserved through the year and moistened with water, for each celebration. All these are condemned, except the use of the unfermented juice of the grape, in which (it is said) is the efficacy of wine, in case of need, if mixed with water, which is declared always necessary to represent the people, as the wine represents the blood of Christ.

Julius was buried, according to the Liberian and Felician Catalogues, |in coemeterio Calepodii ad Callistum| on the Aurelian Way, where he had built a basilica.

[J.B -- Y.]

Julius, bishop of Puteoli
Julius (9) (Julianus), bp. of Puteoli (Gesta de Nom. Acacii, in Labbe, iv.1079 D), probably the bp. Julius to whom, A.D.448, Leo the Great entrusted the execution of certain disciplinary measures in the church of Beneventum (Leo Mag. Ep. xix.736). Certainly he, with Renatus the presbyter and HILARUS the deacon, carried to Flavian of Constantinople the famous |tome| of St. Leo in June 449, and acted as his legate in the |Robber| council of Ephesus (Leo Mag. Ep. xxxiii.866, Migne). The legates are described by Leo as sent de latere meo (Ep. xxxii.859, xxxiv.870. He was not the first pope to use this phrase; see the Ballerini in loc. Migne). Because Julius appears in the |acta| of the council most frequently as Julianus he has been confused with Julian of Cos. That it was our Julius who was the papal legate at Ephesus is proved by Leo's letter to the latter (xxxiv.870) and by the fact that the legate did not know Greek, which Julian of Cos certainly did (see JULIANUS (27); Labbe, iv.121 B; Tillem. xv. note 21, pp.901-902). Evagrius (H. E. i. x.), Prosper (Chron.), and Gesta de Nom. Acac. (in Labbe, iv.1079 D), call the papal legate Julius, not Julianus (see also Marianus Scotus, Chron. ann.450 in Patr. Lat. cxlvii.726). On Quesnel's hypothesis, that Julius and not Renatus died on the road to Ephesus, and that Julian took his place, cf. Tillemont, l.c., and Hefele, Concil. ii.368, 369. On their arrival at Ephesus the legates lodged with Flavian; on the ground that they had lived with him and been tampered with by him (sunekrotethesan, Lat. munerati), Eutyches took exception to their impartiality as judges (Labbe, iv.149 B).

The assertion of Liberatus (Breviarium, c. xii.) that the Roman legates could not take part in the council (|assidere non passi sunt| are his words) because the precedence was not given to them as representing Rome, and because Leo's letter was not read, is not in harmony with the acta of the council (see Tillem. xv. notes 26 and 27, p.904). They undoubtedly did take part in the proceedings of the council, and Julius ranked after Dioscorus. His interpreter, as he could not speak Greek, was Florentius, bp. of Sardis (Labbe, iv.122 B). We read that he made several efforts to resist DIOSCORUS, especially urging that Leo's letter should be read, but he does not seem to have been so prominent in opposition as Hilarus the deacon (ib.128 B, 149 B, 302 D). Leo, however, expresses high commendation of the conduct of his legates generally. They protested in the council, he says, and declared that no violence should sever them from the truth (Ep.45, 922). He speaks to Theodosius, the emperor, of intelligence having been brought him of the acts of the synod by the bishop whom he had sent, as well as by the deacon (Ep. xliii.902); but this in other letters (xliv.911, xlv.919) is corrected by the statement that only Hilarus escaped to Rome. What happened to Julius we do not know, nor do we hear of him subsequently (Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vi.272). Ughelli and Cappelletti (xix.647, 669) name him Julianus and make him 6th bp. of Puteoli between Theodore and Stephen.

[C.G.]

Junilius, quaestor of the sacred palace
Junilius (Iounilos, Junillus), an African by birth, hence commonly known as Junilius Africanus. He filled for seven years in the court of Justinian the important office of quaestor of the sacred palace, succeeding the celebrated Tribonian (Procop. Anecd. c.20). Procopius tells us that Constantine, whom the Acts of the 5th general council shew to have held the office in 553, succeeded on the death of Junilius, which may therefore be placed a year or two earlier. Junilius, though a layman, took great interest in theological studies. A deputation of African bishops visiting Constantinople, one of them, PRIMASIUS of Adrumetum, inquired of his distinguished countryman, Junilius, who among the Greeks was distinguished as a theologian, to which Junilius replied that he knew one Paul [PAUL OF NISIBIS], a Persian by race, who had been educated in the school of the Syrians at Nisibis, where theology was taught by public masters in the same systematic manner as the secular studies of grammar and rhetoric elsewhere. Junilius had an introduction to the Scriptures by this Paul, which, on the solicitation of Primasius, he translated into Latin, breaking it up into question and answer. Kihn identifies this work of Paul with that which Ebedjesu (Asseman. Bibl. Or. III. i.87; Badger, Nestorians, ii.369) calls Maschelmonutho desurtho. The work of Junilius was called |Instituta regularia divinae legis,| but is commonly known as |De partibus divinae legis,| a title which really belongs only to chap. i. It has been often printed in libraries of the Fathers (e.g. Galland, vol. xii.; Migne, vol. lxviii.). The best ed., for which 13 MSS. were collated, is by Prof. Kiln of Würzburg (Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880), a work admirable for its thorough investigations, and throwing much light on Junilius.

The introduction does not, as has been often assumed, represent an African school of theology, but the Syrian; and Kiln conclusively shews that (although possibly Junilius was not aware of it himself) it is all founded on the teaching of THEODORE of Mopsuestia.

Junilius divides the books of Scripture into two classes. The first, which alone he calls Canonical Scripture, are of perfect authority; the second added by many are of secondary (mediae) authority; all other books are of no authority. The first class consists of (1) Historical Books: Pentateuch, Josh., Judg., Ruth, Sam., and Kings., and in N.T. the four Gospels and Acts; (2) Prophetical (in which what is evidently intended for a chronological arrangement is substituted for that more usual): Ps., Hos., Is., Jl., Am., Ob., Jon., Mic., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Jer., Ezk., Dan., Hag., Zech., and Mal. (he says that John's Apocalypse is much doubted of amongst the Easterns); (3) Proverbial or parabolic: the Prov. of Solomon and the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach; (4) Doctrinal: Eccles., the 14 epp. of St. Paul in the order now usual, including Heb., I. Pet., and I. Jn. In his second class he counts (1) Historical: Chron., Job, Esdras (no doubt including Neh.), Judith, Est., and Macc.; (3) Proverbial: Wisdom and Cant.; (4) Doctrinal: the Epp. of Jas., II. Pet., Jude, II. III. Jn. Lam. and Bar. were included in Jer. Tobit is not mentioned, but is quoted in a later part of the treatise. Kihn is no doubt right in regarding its omission as due to the accidental error of an early transcriber; for no writer of the time would have designedly refused to include Tobit even in his list of deuterocanonical books. Junilius gives as a reason for not reckoning the books of the second class as canonical that the Hebrews make this difference, as Jerome and others testify. This is clearly incorrect with regard to several of them, and one is tempted to think (pace Kihn) that Junilius himself added this reference to Jerome and did not find it in his Greek original. The low place assigned to Job and Cant. accords with the estimate formed by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Junilius quotes as Peter's a passage from his second epistle, which he had not admitted into his list of canonical books. He describes Ps., Eccles., and Job as written in metre (see Bickell, Metrices Biblicae Regulae). The work of Junilius presents a great number of other points of interest, e.g. his answer, ii.29, to the question how we prove the books of Scripture to have been written by divine inspiration.

The publication of the work Kihn assigns to 551, in which year the Chronicle of Victor Tununensis records the presence at Constantinople of the African bishops Reparatus, Firmus, Primasius, and Verecundus. He thinks that Junilius probably met Paul of Nisibis there as early as 543. We do not venture to oppose the judgment of one entitled to speak with so high authority; but we should have thought that the introduction into the West of this product of the Nestorian school of theology took place at an earlier period of the controversy about the Three Chapters than 551. It is not unlikely that Primasius paid earlier visits to Constantinople than that of which we have evidence. A commentary on Gen. i. wrongly ascribed to Junilius is now generally attributed to Bede.

[G.S.]

Justina, empress
Justina (5), empress, second wife of Valentinian I., a Sicilian by birth, and, teste Zosimus (iv.19 and 43), the widow of Magnentius, killed in 353. Valentinian may have divorced his first wife (Chron. Pasch.302), and then espoused Justina, probably in 368.

She was an Arian, but during her husband's lifetime concealed her opinions (Ruf. H. E. ii.15, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxi.523). She, however, endeavoured to prevent him from allowing St. Martin of Tours to enter his presence (Sulp. Sev. Dial. ii. in ib. xx.205). After her husband's death she at once used her influence as mother of the infant emperor Valentinian II. to advance the interests of her sect, and soon came into collision with St. Ambrose. Their first contest was probably c.380, when St. Ambrose was summoned to Sirmium to take part in the consecration of Anemius as bishop of that see, the empress being desirous that the new bishop should be consecrated by the Arians (Paulinus, Vita S. Ambrosii, in ib. xiv.30).

After the murder of Gratian and the seizure by Maximus of Spain, Gaul, and Britain in 383, Justina (who, with her infant son, was residing in the imperial palace at Milan) had recourse to her former opponent St. Ambrose. She placed her son in his hands, and induced him to undertake the delicate task of going as ambassador to Maximus, to persuade him to be contented with Gratian's provinces and to leave Valentinian in undisturbed possession of Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum (St. Ambrose, Epp.10, 21, 24; Id. de Obitu Valentiniani, 1182 in Patr. Lat. xvi.1001, 1007, 1035, 1368). His mission was successful, at any rate for a time; but the ungrateful Justina assailed him at Easter 385 with the object of obtaining a church at Milan for the use of her fellow-Arians. For an account of this memorable struggle see AMBROSIUS. By a constitution (Cod. Theod. xvi.1, 4), dated Jan.21, 386, and drawn up at her direction (Soz. H. E. vii.13), those who held the opinions sanctioned by the council of Ariminum were granted the right of meeting for public worship, Catholics being forbidden under pain of death to offer opposition or to endeavour to get the law repealed.

When danger again threatened, Justina again had recourse to Ambrose's services. After Easter 387 he was sent to Trier to ask that the body of Gratian should be restored to his brother and to avert Maximus's threatened invasion of Italy (Ep.24). His mission was unsuccessful; Maximus crossed the Alps in the autumn and made himself master of Italy without striking a blow. Valentinian and his mother and sisters fled by sea to Thessalonica, whence she sent to Theodosius imploring his help. Zosimus (iv.44) narrates how she overcame his reluctance by the charms of her daughter, the beautiful Galla, whose hand paid for his assistance. (See Duc de Broglie, L'Eglise et l'emp. iii.228.) In 388, the year of her son's restoration, Justina died (Soz. H. E. vii.14; Ruf. H. E. ii.17).

[F.D.]

Justinianus I., emperor
Justinianus (6) I., Roman emperor (275-565). I. Life and Character. -- Justinian was born most probably in 483 at Tauresium, on the borders of Illyricum and Macedonia, a spot probably a little S. of Uskiub, the ancient Scupi (see Procop. Aedif. iv.1, and Tozer, Highlands of European Turkey, ii. p.370). After his accession he built at his birthplace a city which he named Justiniana Prima and made the capital of the province and seat of an archbishop. [The tale regarding his Slavonic origin started by Alemanni in his notes to the Anecdota of Procopius seems to be baseless; see art. in Eng. Hist. Rev. Oct.1887, by the present writer.] Early in life he came to Constantinople, and attached himself to his uncle Justin, who, serving in the imperial guards under the emperors Zeno and Anastasius, had risen to high place. At Constantinople Justinian diligently studied law, theology, and general literature, and the influence of his uncle doubtless procured him employment in the civil service of the state. When Justinian was 35, the emperor Anastasius was succeeded by Justin, an illiterate soldier, weakened by age, to whom the help of his more active nephew was almost indispensable. Ecclesiastical affairs and the general administration of the state fell under the control of Justinian. He became co-emperor in 527, and on Justin's death, a month later, assumed without question the sole sovereignty of the Roman world, retaining it till his death in 565, at the age of 82, when he was peaceably succeeded by his nephew Justin II.

In 526 he married Theodora, a woman of singular beauty, and still more remarkable charms of manner and intellect, said to have been a native of Cyprus and a comedian. The gossip of the time, starting from this undoubted fact, has accumulated in the Anecdota, or unpublished memoirs, ascribed to, and no doubt written by (although there has been a controversy on the point), Procopius, a variety of scandalous tales regarding her earlier career. [[339]THEODORA.] She soon acquired an almost unbounded dominion over Justinian's mind, and was commonly regarded as the source of many of his schemes and enterprises. She died in 548, and he did not marry again.

Most of what we know directly about Justinian comes from PROCOPIUS, which does not diminish the difficulty of forming a comprehensive and consistent view of his abilities and character. For Procopius wrote of him with servility in his lifetime, and reviled him in the Anecdota, a singular book which did not come to light till long afterwards. Setting aside exaggerations in both directions, it may be concluded that Justinian was a man of considerable, if not first-rate, abilities. He was well educated, according to the ideas and customs of the time, and more or less conversant with many branches of knowledge. Procopius accuses him of being a barbarian both in mind and speech, which probably means only that he spoke Greek like an Illyrian provincial (Anecd. c.14). His artistic taste is shewn by the many beautiful buildings which he erected, two among which -- those of St. Sophia at Constantinople and St. Vitalis at Ravenna (though it does not appear that he had any share in designing this latter) -- have had the unique distinction of becoming architectural models for subsequent ages, the one for the East, and the other for the West. Several hymns still used in the orthodox Eastern church are ascribed to his pen, and he is the author of a treatise against the Monophysites, which Cardinal Mai has published. The records of his government and administration shew that he possessed great ingenuity and enterprise; but the enterprise was often prompted more by vanity and lust of power than by regard to the welfare of his people, and his ingenuity was not guided by prudence or by a solid knowledge of the economical conditions of prosperity. There was much more cleverness than wisdom about him; we see in his policy few indications of deep and statesmanlike foresight. The chief feature of his character is his extraordinary industry. He seemed to live for work, and toiled harder than any of his own clerks. He was naturally abstemious and regular in life, observing the church fasts very strictly, able to go long without food, taking little sleep, and spending most of his time, when not actually giving audiences, in pacing up and down the rooms of the palace listening to readers or dictating to an amanuensis. He cared little for vulgar pleasures (though he shewed an excessive partiality for the blue faction, he does not appear to have been personally addicted to the games of the circus), and yielded to no influences except those of his wife Theodora. We are told that he was easy of access -- a rare merit in the despotic centre of a highly formal court -- pleasant and reassuring in manner, but also deceitful and capable of treachery and ingratitude. How far this ingratitude was in the most notable case, that of Belisarius, excused by apprehensions of danger, is a problem not wholly solved or soluble. Wantonly cruel he does not seem to have been, and on several occasions shewed an unexpected clemency, but he shrank from no severities that his intellect judged useful.

In person he was well formed, rather above the middle height, with a ruddy and smiling countenance. Besides his effigy on coins, we have two probably contemporary portraits among the mosaics of Ravenna -- one in the apse of the church of San Vitale, built in his reign, in which he appears among a number of other figures; the other now preserved in the noble church of Sant' Apollinare in Urbe.

II. The political events of his reign may be read in Procopius, Agathias, Theophanes (all three in the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine historians), in the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius, in Gibbon (see cc. xl.-xliii. for a full and brilliant picture of Justinian's times), and in Le Beau (Histoire du bas empire, vols. viii. and ix., with St. Martin's notes). Finlay (Greece under the Romans, vol. i. of new ed.) has some valuable remarks, as also Hertzberg, Griechenland unter der Römer, vol. iii.; see also Dahn, Prokopios von Caesarea. At Justinian's accession the empire was generally at peace. An expedition was dispatched in 533, under Belisarius, which landed in Africa without opposition and reduced the whole Vandal kingdom to submission in little more than three months. The Vandals who survived seem to have been rapidly absorbed into the African population; anyhow, we hear no more of them. The fleet of Belisarius received in rapid succession the submission of Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearic Isles. Orthodoxy was re-established there and in Africa. Justinian directed the laws against heretics to be put in force against the Arians and Donatists in Africa, and their meetings to be altogether forbidden (Baron. ad ann.535). The orthodox bishops met in a council, at which 207 prelates were present (Baron. ad ann.535). The orthodox churches of Africa were restored to the full enjoyment of their rights, property, and privileges. But the African church and province never regained its former prosperity. The misgovernment of the imperial lieutenants completed the ruin which the Vandals had begun, and the wild Moorish tribes encroached in all directions on the Roman population. Great part of the country, once the most productive part of the Roman dominions, relapsed into solitude and neglect; the Christians there were still divided by the mutual jealousies of Donatists, Arians, and orthodox.

The success of his enterprise against the Vandals encouraged Justinian to attempt the recovery of Italy from the Ostrogoths, who had held it and Sicily since the invasion under Theodoric in 493-494. The emperors at Constantinople considered themselves, ever since the extinction of the Western branch of the empire in 476, de jure sovereigns of Italy and the whole West, regarding the Gothic kings partly as their lieutenants, partly as mere usurpers. Justinian dispatched Belisarius from Constantinople with a fleet and over 7,000 men in the autumn of 535. He reduced Sicily easily in a few weeks. Then he attacked Italy, occupying Rome in Dec.536. The Ostrogoths had shortly before risen against their king Theodahad, and chosen Witigis, whom Belisarius took at Ravenna and carried to Constantinople, leaving the imperial power supreme in Italy. Totila, whom the Goths chose in the room of Witigis, recovered fortress after fortress from the incompetent generals who succeeded Belisarius, till he was master of most part of Italy; and at length restored the Gothic kingdom to a better position than it had held since the death of Theodoric. But in 552 his army was defeated, and himself slain by Narses, and with him died the last hopes of the Gothic kingdom of Italy. After Narses had destroyed Butelin and his host in a great battle near Casilinum in Campania, 544, the small remains of the Gothic nation either passed into Spain and Gaul to mingle with other barbarians or were lost among the Roman population of Italy, which now was finally in Justinian's hands. It was, however, a desolated and depopulated Italy. Nor was it long left to his successors.

The third great struggle of Justinian's reign was against the Persian empire, then under Kobad and Chosroes Anushirvan in the zenith of its power. After several campaigns Chosroes concluded in 533, on obtaining from the emperor 11,000 pounds of gold, a peace which gave rest to the eastern provinces. In 539 war broke out again, and also a revolt against Justinian in Armenia, a part of whose people appealed to the Persians for help. Chosroes commanded a vast force, which the Roman generals were quite unable to resist in the open field. In 540 Antioch, far the greatest town of the eastern part of the empire, was sacked, and many thousand inhabitants carried to a new city, built for them near Ctesiphon, his own capital. Towards the end of Justinian's reign the fighting slackened; a peace for 50 years was concluded in 562 on terms humiliating to Justinian, who undertook to pay yearly 30,000 gold pieces. This peace lasted only 10 years; but the war which began in 572 lies outside Justinian's reign.

Less famous, but perhaps even more ruinous, were the contests which Justinian had to maintain against the barbarians of Scythia and the Danube. From the Alps to the Black Sea, the N. border of the empire was the scene of seldom intermitted warfare. The various tribes whom the Roman historian calls Huns, and who included the race subsequently distinguished as Bulgarians, poured from the S. of what is now Russia down upon Thrace, ravaged it and Macedonia, penetrated on one occasion to the isthmus of Corinth, and six years before Justinian's death, in 559, appeared in great force under the walls of
Constantinople, from which they were repulsed by the skill and vigour of Belisarius. In the N.W. provinces villages were destroyed, cultivated land laid waste, and immense numbers of the inhabitants carried into slavery. The only serious efforts the emperor made against these enemies (besides the building of fortresses) were by diplomacy. His policy was to foment hostilities between neighbouring tribes, taking sometimes one, sometimes another, into alliance with the empire, and offering large presents, often so regular as to amount to a kind of blackmail, to buy them off for the moment or induce them to turn their arms against some other barbarian power. His activity as a negotiator was unwearied. Embassies from all parts of the barbarian world arrived at Constantinople, excited the wonder of the people by their strange garb and manners, and returned home laden with gifts and promises. Even the tribes of the Baltic and the Turks of Central Asia seem to have thus come into relations with him. His policy was much blamed in his own time (see esp. Procop. Anecd.), and may appear shortsighted as supplying fresh inducements to the barbarians to renew their attacks and letting them know the wealth of the capital; but perhaps no other policy was possible, and the incidental advantages of Roman influence and culture upon the border tribes may have been considerable.

III. We possess no systematic account of the internal state of the empire in Justinian's time, and depend only upon occasional notices by historians like Procopius and Agathias, and a study of Justinian's legislative measures. The civil service was, and had long been, in a high state of efficiency. Such alterations as Justinian made tended to perfect this organization and to render all its members more completely subservient to the crown. He spent enormous sums not only on his wars but in the erection of churches, fortresses, and public buildings of every kind (a list will be found in the de Aedificiis of Procopius), and was therefore always in want of money. Oppressive as taxation had been before, he seems to have made it even more stringent; and when the land-tax and other ordinary sources of revenue failed, he was driven to such expedients as the sale of public offices, and even to the prostitution of justice and the confiscation of the property of private persons. Though the instances of this rest chiefly on the untrustworthy authority of the Anecdota of Procopius (who ascribes the worst to the immediate action of the empress), stories in other historians give some support to the accusation. On one occasion he attempted to debase the coin, but was checked by a threatened insurrection in the capital. The same charges of venality and extortion are brought against Tribonian, John of Cappadocia, and others of Justinian's ministers. The administration of justice must have been greatly improved by the promulgation of the whole binding law in the Codex, Pandects, and Institutes; and great importance was evidently attached to the maintenance of the law schools of Berytus and Constantinople; corruption may, however, have largely prevailed among the judges. Brilliant as Justinian's reign may appear to us, the sufferings endured by the people from war, taxation, the persecution of heretics, the blows struck at the privileges of various classes and professions, as well as from the great plague and from destructive earthquakes, made his rule unpopular, as shewn by the rebellions in Africa and the disaffection of the reconquered Italians. In Constantinople, not to speak of minor seditions, there occurred a tremendous insurrection in Jan.532, arising out of a tumult in the hippodrome, and apparently due, partly to resentment at the maladministration of John of Cappadocia, partly to the presence in the city of a large number of starving immigrants. The revolters held the city for some days, set fire to some of the finest buildings, drove Justinian into his palace fortress, and proclaimed Hypatius, nephew of the deceased emperor Anastasius, emperor. Having no concerted plan of action, part of them were induced to abandon the rest, who were then surprised and slaughtered by the imperial guards under the command of Belisarius. It is said that 30,000 people perished in this rising, which is known as the Nika sedition, from the watchword used by the rebels. (See an interesting account by W. A. Schmidt, Der Aufstand in Constantinopel unter Kaiser Justinian.)

He made efforts to open up new channels for the traffic in silk, and ultimately succeeded, through the boldness of two Persian monks, who conveyed the eggs of the worm in a hollow cane from China to the empire. The manufacture of silk was thus no longer at the mercy of the Persians, who had stopped the supply in time of war, and the culture of the silk-worm became an important branch of industry in the Roman East.

As a whole, the faults of Justinian's domestic government appear greatly to outweigh its merits. His subjects had grown tired of him long before his death; but later ages looked back to his reign as a period of conquest abroad and magnificence at home, and accepted the surname of the Great.

IV. Ecclesiastical policy occupied no small share of Justinian's thoughts and care.

During the lifetime of Justin I., he sought to re-establish the communion of the churches of Constantinople and Rome, which had been interrupted owing to the Monophysite controversies. On his accession in 527 he professed himself a zealous supporter of the Two Natures and the decrees of Chalcedon, and the firmness of his throne was no doubt partly due to this coincidence of his theological views with those of the bulk of his subjects in Constantinople, Thrace, and Asia Minor. He had great confidence in his own powers as a theologian, and took an active part in all the current controversies. A diligent student and having some literary pretensions, he read and wrote much on theological topics. His ecclesiastical policy apparently had two main objects, not, however, consistently pursued -- the maintenance of the orthodox doctrine of the Four Councils, and especially of Chalcedon; and the reconciliation of the Monophysites, or at least the inducing by apparent concessions the more moderate Monophysites to accept the decrees of Chalcedon. There was in his court an active, though probably concealed, Monophysite party, headed by, and sheltering itself under, the empress Theodora. One of the emperor's first acts was to summon a conference of leading theologians on both sides, so as to bring about a reconciliation. After several sittings, however, in one of which Justinian delivered a long allocution, vital points were reached on which neither side could yield, and the conference was dissolved. Among the Monophysite leaders were Severus, deposed from the patriarchate of Antioch in the time of Justin, and Anthimus, bp. of Trebizond. They seem to have acquired much influence in Theodora's coterie, and, probably owing to her, Anthimus was raised in 535 to the patriarchate of Constantinople, in spite of the doctrinal suspicions attaching to him. Pope Agapetus, having heard of these suspicions, and disapproving, as Rome was wont to do, of translations from one bishopric to another, refused to communicate with the patriarch till he should have purged himself from the charge of heresy, and insisted that, when purged, Anthimus should return to Trebizond. Justinian (perhaps owing to the support which Theodora seems to have given Anthimus) was at first displeased and resisted, but Agapetus prevailed. Anthimus was deposed, and Mennas, head of the hospitium of Samson in Constantinople, appointed in his place and consecrated by Agapetus, who soon afterwards died. By the directions of Justinian, Mennas called a local synod, which met during May and June 536 (Mansi, viii.; cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. pp.742-753), and deposed Anthimus from his see of Trebizond. The synod anathematized Severus, Peter of Apamea, and Zoaras as suspected of Monophysitism. In Aug.536 Justinian issued an edict addressed to Mennas confirming all that the synod had done.

After this there appears to have been a comparative calm in the ecclesiastical world of Constantinople, till the emperor's attention was called to the growth of Origenistic opinions in the East, and especially in Syria.

About the beginning of the 6th cent. there had been in the monasteries of Palestine, and particularly in that great one called the New Laura, a considerable diffusion of Origen's opinions, which excited the alarm of St. Sabas and of the patriarch Peter of Jerusalem. The latter in 543 induced Pelagius, apocrisiarius of the Roman bishop, to make representations to the emperor on the subject, and sent with him four monks to accuse the followers of Origen. The four monks were supported by Mennas the patriarch. Two Origenist bishops, Theodore Ascidas, archbp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Domitian, bp. of Ancyra, resided usually at Constantinople and had much influence with the emperor. Nevertheless they seem to have feared the charge of heresy too much to resist the monks from Palestine, and perhaps did not own their attachment to Origen's writings. Anyhow, the emperor promptly condemned the accused opinions, issuing a long edict addressed to the patriarch Mennas, in which he classes Origen among the heretics, and singles out for anathema ten particular doctrines contained in his writings. A local council, convoked by Mennas, dutifully echoed the emperor's edict, publishing its anathemas against 14 propositions drawn from Origen, and condemning his person.

Theodore and Domitian had submitted, but their mortification drove them to take action in another way, and thus to awaken a long, needless, and most mischievous controversy. Justinian was at work upon a treatise on the Incarnation, whereby he trusted to convince and conciliate the stubborn Acephali (or extremer Monophysites) of Egypt. Theodore, according to our authorities, suggested to him that a simpler way of winning back those who disliked the council of Chalcedon would be to get certain writings condemned which that council had approved, but which the Monophysites disliked as being of a distinctly Nestorian tendency. (See Liberatus ap. Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii.160, as to Theodore, and Facundus, bk. i. c.2, as to Domitian of Ancyra; cf. Evagr. H. E. iv.38; Vita S. Sabae.) They singled out 3 treatises for condemnation, which soon became famous as the tria kephalaia (tria capitula), which we usually translate Three Chapters, but would be better called the Three Articles, viz. the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the treatise of Theodoret against Cyril and his twelve articles, and the letter of (or attributed to) Ibas, bp. of Edessa, to the Persian bp. Maris. Later, the term tria kephalaia came to mean both the persons and writings impugned. This latter is the usual sense in the authors of the time (e.g. Facundus of Hermiane, whose treatise is entitled Defensio pro Tribus Capitulis) and in the protocols of the fifth general council. The Nestorians still appealed to Theodore as their highest authority, and triumphantly pointed to the fact that he had never been condemned. Against Theodoret and Ibas the case was weaker. Both had joined in anathematizing Nestorius at Chalcedon, and been restored to their sees. But both had attacked Cyril, who, though claimed by the Monophysites, was also a bulwark of orthodoxy, and the ep. to Maris was a violent assault on the council of Ephesus. It might therefore be with some show of plausibility alleged that the authority of that council was not established while these assailants seemed to be protected by the aegis of Chalcedon.

Seconded by Theodora (says Liberatus, u.s.), Theodore Ascidas and Domitian persuaded Justinian to compose and issue a treatise or edict against the Three Articles. Desisting from his book against the Acephali, he forthwith composed the suggested edict, which was issued between 543 and 545, probably in 545. It has perished, only three or four short extracts being preserved by Facundus. It was circulated through the church for the signatures of the bishops. The four Eastern patriarchs were naturally afraid of reopening any question as to the authority of Chalcedon. Mennas, after some hesitation, signed, but subject to a promise given him on oath, that he might withdraw his signature if the bp. of Rome refused to agree. The other three, Ephraim of Antioch, Peter of Jerusalem, Zoilus of Alexandria, under real or imagined threats of deposition, obeyed and signed, and after more or less intimidation and the offer of various rewards, the great majority of bishops through Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Macedonia signed also. In the West, the bishops having less to lose and being accustomed to face Arian potentates, Justinian found a less ready compliance. The bishops of Africa led the opposition, and were largely supported by those of Italy, Gaul, Illyricum, and Dalmatia. In Rome much alarm was produced by the arrival of the edict, and by the emperor's command to Vigilius, lately chosen pope, to repair to Constantinople. Theodora enforced by terrible threats his appearance. Vigilius, not venturing openly to oppose the emperor, and fearing the anger of Theodora, had also to reckon with the all but universal loyalty to the council of Chalcedon of the Roman church and of the Western churches generally, and so temporized. He arrived in Constantinople in 547, having delayed nearly a year in Sicily. In 548 he issued a document called the Judicatum, condemning the Three Articles, saving, however, the authority of Chalcedon. In 548 Theodora died, but Justinian was now thoroughly committed against the Three Articles. He continued to coerce the recalcitrant bishops of Africa, depriving some of their sees, and, after various negotiations with Vigilius, issued in 551 a second edict against the Three Articles addressed to the whole Christian world, which has been preserved under the name of the Confession of Faith, homologia pisteos Ioustinianou autokratoros (Mansi, ix.537). This edict is really a theological treatise, taking the writings of the three impugned doctors and discovering heresies in them by minute scrutiny and inference. Vigilius was required to subscribe it, but refused, and took refuge in the basilica of St. Peter at Constantinople, and afterwards in the church of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon. Here he remained, until the emperor, anxious for his concurrence in summoning a general council as the only solution for the dissensions, induced him to withdraw his censure of the edict. He then returned to Constantinople to await the opening of the council. The first sitting was on May 5, 553. Eutychius, who, upon the death of Mennas in Aug.552, had become patriarch of Constantinople, presided. By him sat Apollinaris of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch. Eustochius of Jerusalem was represented by 3 bishops. Altogether 151 bishops were present at the opening, while 164 signed at the end, the very large majority belonging to the East. Six from Africa attended, but more than 20 were kept away by Vigilius, who himself refused to attend, but sent his views in writing in a document called the Constitutum (Mansi, ix.61), presented, not to the council, but to Justinian himself, who refused to receive it. Justinian addressed a letter to the fathers, reproaching Vigilius, and requiring his name to be struck out of the diptychs, as having by his defence of Theodoret and Ibas excluded himself from the right to church fellowship. He also produced evidence that the pope had solemnly promised, both to himself and Theodora, to procure the condemnation of the Three Articles. Thereupon the council, troubling no further about the pope, proceeded to examine the writings impugned. (Hefele, u.s.267-274. For the Acta see Mansi, vol. ix. and under CONSTANTINOPLE, D. C. A.) Theodore of Mopsuestia was anathematized absolutely, and anathema was pronounced against Theodoret's treatise in opposition to Cyril's Twelve Articles and against the letter to Maris, which passed under the name of Ibas. A series of 14 articles, or anathemas, was prepared, most of them corresponding closely with the articles of Justinian's homologia pisteos, in which the orthodox faith as to the Trinity and Incarnation was restated. The first four general councils and their decrees were formally accepted, and art.11 anathematizes Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Origen, Nestorius, Eutyches, and their adherents. It has been often supposed that the opinions of Origen and his followers were formally condemned at this council. (See Evagr. iv.38; Theoph. Chronogr. p.354 of Bonn ed. vol. i.) But this has arisen from confounding the former local council under Mennas in 543 with this general council. Origen is only referred to in its general anathema, and thus no particular doctrines of his have ever been condemned by the whole church. The 14 articles were subscribed at the last sitting, on June 2, 553, by all the 164 bishops, headed by Eutychius of Constantinople. Eight African bishops signed. Justinian sent the decrees all over the empire for signature by the bishops. Little opposition was experienced in the East. The monks of the New Laura, who attacked the decrees, were chased out by the imperial general Anastasius. The council had threatened with deposition any bishops or other clerics who should teach or speak against it. We hear, however, of only one bishop, Alexander of Abydus, who was deposed. Vigilius and the Western ecclesiastics who had signed the Constitutum appear to have held out for some time, but in Dec.553 Vigilius issued a letter (Mansi, ix.414), addressed to the patriarch Eutychius, in which he owns that he was in the wrong and is now glad to confess it. He then anathematizes Theodore, Theodoret, and the letter of lbas, without prejudice to the authority of the council of Chalcedon, which of course never meant to approve these heresies. Being then released by Justinian, Vigilantius set off for Rome, but died in Syracuse upon his way. A serious schism followed in the West. The bishops of Dalmatia and Illyricum were hottest in their opposition to the anathemas of the fifth council, and their archbp. Frontinus was taken to Constantinople and thence banished to Upper Egypt. A manifesto by Justinian, addressed to some Western bishops (ib.589), has been supposed to be an answer to remonstrances from these Illyrians. The resistance in Africa was broken by similar violent means, a good many bishops being deposed and imprisoned in convents, under the auspices of the metropolitan Primasius of Carthage, and by the secular arm of the governor. In Gaul and Spain there was great discontent, though not a complete breach with Rome; while in N. Italy the bishops of Tuscany, the province of Milan, and Istria and Venetia, broke off communion with the pope. The patriarchate of Aquileia, afterwards removed to Grado, and finally divided into the two small patriarchates of Grado and Aquileia, arose out of this schism, which did not end till the beginning of the 8th cent. Ultimately the whole Western church was brought by the efforts of the popes to recognize the fifth general council. The effect, however, which Justinian had been encouraged to expect was not attained. Not a single Monophysite seems to have returned to the orthodox church. The Egyptian Acephali in particular were as stubborn as ever.

Justinian in his last days himself lapsed into heresy. The doctrine that the body of Christ was insensible to fleshly passions and weaknesses, was in fact incorruptible, and so not ordinary flesh at all, had been broached early in the century by bp. JULIAN of Halicarnassus, a leading Monophysite, in opposition to the view of Severus, patriarch of Antioch, that Christ's body was corruptible up to the resurrection, and only afterwards ceased to be so. Justinian published an edict declaring the doctrine of Julian orthodox and requiring the assent of all patriarchs and bishops to this new article. Eutychius of Constantinople was deposed for rejecting the edict. Before more could be done, Justinian died (A.D.565) and the controversy at once collapsed, for his successor took comparatively slight interest in theological questions.

The general character of Justinian's ecclesiastical policy has been sufficiently indicated. In spite of his protestations of respect for the clergy, the important place they held at his court, and the privileges which his legislation gave them, he never hesitated to resort to despotism and banishment to bend them to his will. No previous Roman emperor had been so much interested in theological disputes, nor arrogated to himself so great a right of interference even with the popes. His control of the fifth council was much more direct and considerable than his predecessors exercised at Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Justinian was through his life a resolute, though not always consistent, persecutor. Nestorians and Eutychians were punished with deposition from ecclesiastical office, excommunication, and occasionally with banishment. Manicheans, Gnostics, and Montanists were more severely dealt with, deprived of all civil rights and forbidden to meet for worship. These penalties were often enforced with much cruelty and sometimes produced sanguinary contests. The Montanists of Phrygia, being required to undergo baptism, shut themselves up in their churches, killed their wives and children, and set fire to the buildings. Similar rigours were inflicted on Jews and Samaritans, though the Jews, as a serviceable element in the population, seem to have in practice fared somewhat better than the others. It is not very easy to determine precisely how far the laws directed against heathenism were carried out. They punish apostasy with death, require all persons to undergo baptism, deprive pagans of all civil rights and privileges, and forbid any public pagan worship. In spite of this, a great number of pagans continued to exist even among the cultivated and wealthy classes of the capital. An inquisition at Constantinople in the 3rd year of Justinian's reign (Theoph. Chron. p.153) shewed a large number of pagans in the higher official classes. An ordinance was then issued, forbidding all civil employment to persons not orthodox Christians and three months were allowed for conversion. Not long before, Justinian had taken away all the churches of the heretics, except one of the Arians, and given them to the orthodox (ib.150). Energetic inquiries through W. Asia Minor are said to have led to the enforced baptism of 70,000 persons. Among the mountain tribes of Taygetus paganism survived till the days of Basil I. (867-886). Only at Athens, however, did persons of intellectual and social eminence continue to openly avow themselves heathens. The professors of its university, or at least the most distinguished among them, were not Christians. Although speculative moralists and mystics, making philosophy their rule of life, rather than worshippers of the old deities of Olympus, their influence was decidedly anti-Christian. In 528, on the discovery of crypto-paganism in his capital, Justinian issued several stringent constitutions, one of which, forbidding |persons persisting in the madness of Hellenism to teach any branch of knowledge,| struck directly at the Athenian professors. In 529 he sent a copy of the Codex Constitutionum, containing this ordinance, to Athens, with a prohibition to teach law there, and shortly after the teaching of philosophy was similarly forbidden, and the remaining property of the Platonic Academy was seized for public purposes. This finally extinguished the university. Its head, Damascius, a neo-Platonist of Syrian birth, and by conviction a resolute heathen, and six of his colleagues proceeded (in 532) to the court of Chosroes, king of Persia, at Ctesiphon, but soon returned to the Roman empire, in which Chosroes secured for them, by a treaty he negotiated with Justinian, the freedom to live unbaptized and unmolested. They did not, however, settle again in Athens, which rapidly became a Christian city even in externals, its temples being turned into churches. So one may ascribe to Justinian the extinction in the Roman world of open and cultivated paganism as well as of the Platonic philosophy.

V. Justinian's legislation falls under two principal heads -- his work as a codifier and consolidator of pre-existing law; and his own new laws, some of which were incorporated in the Codex Constitutionum, while others, published subsequently, remain as detached statutes, and go by the name of the Novels (Novellae Constitutiones.) The vast changes involved in the establishment of Christianity had rendered much of the old law, though still formally unrepealed, practically obsolete. There was therefore overwhelming necessity for sweeping reforms both in the substance and in the outward form and expression of the law. Such reforms had been attempted in the time of THEODOSIUS II., when the Theodosian Codex, containing a collection of the later constitutions, had been prepared and published A.D.438. This, however, dealt only with the imperial constitutions, not with the writings of the jurists; and now, nearly a century later, the old evils were found as serious as ever, while the further changes in society had made the necessity for abolishing antiquated enactments even greater.

Justinian set to work so promptly after his accession that he had probably meditated already upon the measures which were called for and fixed his eyes on the men to be used as instruments. He began with the easier part of the task, the codification of jus novum, the imperial constitutions of more recent date. A commission was appointed in Feb.528 to go through the whole mass of constitutions and select for preservation those still in force and of practical importance. In Apr.529 the Codex Constitutionum was formally promulgated, and copies sent into every province of the empire, with directions that it should supersede all other constitutions previously in force. (See Const. Summa Reipublicae prefixed to the Codex.)

The next step was to deal with the jus vetus, the law contained in the writings of the authorized jurists, which practically included so much of the old leges, senatus consulta, and edicta as retained any practical importance. But there were many differences of opinion among the jurists whose writings had legal authority. Justinian accordingly issued a series of 50 constitutions, known as the Quinquaginta Decisiones, settling the disputed points (see Const. Cordi Nobis prefixed to the Codex). At the same time a large number of other ordinances were promulgated, amending the laws and abolishing obsolete provisions. The ground being thus cleared, he appointed a commission of 16 lawyers, under the presidency of Tribonian. Their instructions were chiefly: to collect into one body all best worth preserving in the writings of the authorized jurists, making extracts so as to avoid both repetition and
contradiction, and give one statement of the law upon each of the many points where discrepant views had, formerly prevailed. Redundancies were to be cut off, errors in manuscripts or in expression set right, alterations introduced where necessary, no antinomia (contradiction) allowed to remain, nothing repealed which had been already enacted in the Codex. Obsolete rules of law were to be passed over. The work was to be distributed into 50 books. The constitution containing these directions is dated Dec.530. The commissioners promptly set to work, reading no less than 2,000 treatises for the purpose of making extracts. The work, to which the names of Digesta or Pandectae (Pandektai -- all receivers) are indifferently given by Justinian, was completed in the autumn of 533 and published with two prefatory constitutions on Dec.16. Each book is divided into titles, each title into extracts. The total number of titles is 432, and of extracts from 39 jurists 9,123. The whole book is published as an imperial constitution, deriving its force from the imperial sanction, which abrogated all pre-existing law, except that contained in the Codex and subsequently published constitutions. No judge nor advocate might travel out of the four corners of these two new statutes, the Codex and the Digesta.

While the Digest was in progress, Justinian directed three of the chief commissioners -- Tribonian, Theophilus professor of law in the university of Constantinople, and Dorotheus professor of law at Berytus (Beyrut in Syria, the other great law-school of the empire) -- to prepare an elementary manual for educational purposes, based on the existing treatises, and especially on the deservedly popular Institutes of Gaius, but brought up to the state of the law as changed by recent emperors and by Justinian himself. This treatise, dealing in four books with the law of Persons, of Things, and of Actions, was published shortly before the Digest, not only as a text-book for teaching, but also as a law, a constitution with full imperial authority. It is the treatise now known as Justinian's Institutiones.

On Nov.16, 534, a revised Codex, including constitutions published since 529, and omitting laws that had been in the interval repealed or become unnecessary, was issued with an introductory constitution (now prefixed to it) called Cordi nobis, abrogating the former edition altogether. The Codex we now have is this new one. It is divided into 12 books and 765 titles, containing 4,652 constitutions, the earliest dating from Hadrian, while far the larger part of the constitutions in the Codex were more recent, and perhaps half of them the work of the Christian emperors.

Between 534 and the end of Justinian's reign a large number of new laws appeared, the majority during the lifetime of Tribonian (d.545). These are called Novellae Constitutiones post Codicem (nearai diataxeis), or shortly Novellae (nearai), Novels. They mostly have the form of edicts or general laws rather than of the earlier rescripta. They do not appear to have ever been gathered into one officially sanctioned volume (although this had originally been promised, see Const. Cordi nobis), but several private collections were made from which our present text is derived. (See as to the Novels Biener, Gesch. der Novellen Justinians, and generally as to the history and edd. of the Corpus Juris, Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, Leipz.1857.)

The Corpus Juris Civilis, consisting of the four parts already mentioned -- the Codex, the Digesta, the Institutiones, and the Novellae -- became under Justinian the sole law of the Roman empire, was accepted in the early Middle Ages as the law of Germany, S. France, and Italy, and has exerted a great influence on the jurisprudence even of countries which, like England, repudiate (except in special departments) its authority. As we now understand by codification the reduction of the whole law into one scientific system of rules, new in form and expression though mostly old in substance, the work of Justinian would be better described as a Consolidation than a Codification. On the whole, it may be said that he exercised a wise discretion in attempting no more, and many as are the faults in the arrangement of his Codex and Digest and in the occasional disproportion of treatment, the work was done decidedly better than other literary and scientific productions of Justinian's age would have led us to expect.

The Corpus Juris held its ground as the supreme law book of the empire for little more than three centuries. Much of the earlier law had then become obsolete, and something shorter, less elaborate, more adapted to the needs and lower capacities of the time was required. Accordingly the emperors, Basil the Macedonian, Constantine, and Leo the philosopher, directed the preparation of a new law book, which, revised and finally issued under Leo c.890, received the name of the Basilica, or Imperial Code. It contains, in 60 books, a complete system of law for the Eastern empire, retaining a great deal of the substance of the Corpus Juris, but in a wholly altered form; the extracts from the Codex of constitutions, and those from the Pandects and Novels being all thrown into one new Codex, and intermingled with later matter. It is in Greek; is much less bulky than the Corpus Juris, and has come down to us imperfect. The best ed. is Haimbach's (Leipz.1833-1851), with supplement by Zacharia (Leipz.1846). The Codex is cited in Herzog. vol. ix. (1901), according to the ed. of P. Krüger (Berlin, 1877); the Novellae according to the ed. of C. E. Zacharias a Lingenthal (2 vols. Leipz.1881).

The new legislation of Justinian is contained partly in the Codex and partly in the Novels. The legal changes made by the constitutions of the first seven years of his reign, which have been incorporated in the Codex, are often merely solutions of problems, or settlements of disputes which had perplexed or divided the earlier jurists. These were promulgated in the Quinquaginta Decisiones already mentioned. A considerable number more relate to administrative subjects; while the rest are miscellaneous, running over the whole field of law. For his ecclesiastical constitutions see articles in D. C. A., to which this subject more properly belongs. A few remarks may, however, be profitably made here on the emperor's ecclesiastical laws as contained firstly in the Codex Constitutionum, where they are abbreviated; and, secondly, in the Novels, where they appear at full and often wearisome length. The earlier ones are in the Codex, the Novels extend from 534 to 565.

In Justinian's Codex the first 13 titles of bk. i. are occupied by laws relating to Christian theology and doctrine. Title I., styled |De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica et ut nemo de ea publice contendere audeat,| contains (besides extracts from laws of earlier emperors) four laws by Justinian, beginning with the fifth, some of which have been taken into the Codex from the Collectio Constitutionum Ecclesiasticarum, laying down the true orthodox faith as defined by the first four general councils, and anathematizing |Nestorius the man-worshipper, Eutyches the insane, Apollinaris the soul destroyer,| and all who agree with these heretics. One of these constitutions is an edict addressed by Justinian to pope John (as well as to Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople), with the reply of the pope confirming the edict as a declaration of the faith. Title II., |De Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis et de rebus et privilegiis earum,| contains eight laws by Justinian dealing chiefly with legacies to churches or other charitable uses, and with the management of church property. Title III. is, |De Episcopis et clericis et orphanotrophiis et xenodochiis et brephotrophiis et ptochotrophiis et asceteriis et monachis et privilegiis eorum et castrensi peculio et de redimendis captivis et de nuptiis clericorum vetitis seu permissis.| Sixteen laws in it (less than one-third in number, but more than half in bulk) are by Justinian, and treat of a great many topics, including the election and qualifications of bishops and priests, the choice of heads (hegoumenoi, ai) of monasteries and nunneries, the observance of a pure and strict life in monasteries, the management of church property by the bishop and steward, with various provisions relating to charitable foundations, to the residence of the clergy at their churches, the regular maintenance of divine service there, and to wills of property for church purposes. Title IV., |De Episcopali Audientia et de diversis capitulis quae ad jus curamque et reverentiam pontificalem pertinent,| is almost equally miscellaneous in its contents. Fourteen constitutions in it are by Justinian. The fifth, |De Haereticis et Manichaeis et Samaritis,| contains a selection of persecuting or disabling laws from the time of Constantine down to and including Justinian's own. The penalties threatened, and the general severity of tone, steadily increase as time goes on, and the number of different kinds of heretics included in the denunciations is enlarged. In one case (c.21) a distinction is drawn by the emperor between various degrees of heresy and infidelity. |Manichaeis Borboritis et paganis, necnon Samaritis et Montanistis et Ascodrogitis et Ophitis omne testimonium sicut et alias legitimas conversationes sancimus esse interdictum. Aliis vero haereticis tantum modo judicialia testimonia contra orthodoxos, secundum quod constitutum est, volumus esse inhibita.| Title VI., |Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur|; VII., |De Apostatis|; VIII., |Nemini licere signum Salvatoris, Christi humi vel in silice vel in marmore aut insculpere aut pingere|; IX., |De Judaeis et coelicolis|; and X., |Ne Christianum mancipium haereticus vel paganus vel Judaeus habeat vel possideat vel circumcidat,| are comparatively short and contain only laws of earlier emperors. In XI., |De Paganis Sacrificiis et Templis,| is an interesting collection of various enactments against paganism from the famous edict of Constantius (A.D.353) onwards, concluding with a general command to all heathens to be baptized forthwith, on pain of losing all their property and all civic rights; while death is the penalty for any one who, having been baptized, relapses into heathenism. All sacrifices, or other acts of pagan worship, are strictly forbidden and severely punishable; all gifts of property to any heathen temple or purpose are confiscated, the temples being all destroyed or appropriated to other uses, and the teaching of paganism, and indeed any teaching by any pagan, is absolutely prohibited. Titles XII. and XIII., |De his qui ad ecclesias confugiunt vel ibi exclamant,| and |De his qui in ecclesiis manumittuntur,| are less important. They illustrate the growth of the right of sanctuary in churches, and the practice of manumission there. With title XIV., |De Legibus et Constitutionibus Principum et edictis,| ordinary civil legislation begins. A good many references to ecclesiastical matters, and especially to the jurisdiction of the bishops, are scattered through other parts of the Codex. It is clear from this summary that neither Justinian nor his predecessors intended to frame a complete body of laws or rules for the government of the church, its hierarchical constitution and administration, much less for its internal discipline or its ritual. These things had been left to be settled by custom, by the authority of patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops, by the canons of councils as occasion arose. Not that the civil monarch supposed such to lie beyond his scope, for in Constantinople the emperors, and Justinian most of all, regarded themselves as clothed with a supreme executive authority over the religious no less than the secular society. The distinction afterwards asserted in the West between the temporal and spiritual powers had not then been imagined. No Eastern ecclesiastic denied the emperor's right to summon general councils, direct them, and confirm their decrees. But the emperors had been content to leave to churchmen the settling of what were regarded as more or less technical and professional matters, which they were fittest to settle. The narrow and bigoted spirit, which runs through the persecuting laws included in the Codex, is fully as conspicuous in Justinian's own as in those of any of his predecessors. Moreover, by re-enacting them he made himself responsible for all that they contained. In that age of the world it was believed possible to stamp out heresy by a sufficiently vigorous exercise of the arm of flesh. Paganism was in fact thus stamped out, though in one or two mountainous districts of Greece and perhaps of Asia Minor it lingered secretly for 2 or 3 centuries more.

The topics of the Novels, or constitutions issued by Justinian from 535 till his death in 565, are very various. Of the 153 to which the 168 appearing in the largest collection may be reduced, 33, forming the largest group, relate to ecclesiastical and religious matters. Next in number come those dealing with civil and military administration. Marriage and the legal relations arising therefrom are dealt with in various Novels. Justinian was fond of tinkering at this subject, and not always successfully. The most remarkable provisions are in Novels 117 (§§ 10 and 12) and 134 (§ 11), in which he greatly limits the freedom of divorce previously allowed, almost indeed abolishing it. But this severity was found unmaintainable: such complaints arose that in 566, ten years after the 134th Novel appeared, Justin II., nephew and successor of Justinian, repealed (Nov. cxl.) the penalties provided by it and by the 117th, leaving the law as it had stood under earlier sovereigns. The Novels have a great many provisions regarding dowries, simplifying a rather complicated branch of the law and securing the interests of the wife. Several constitutions, prompted by a desire for moral reformation, deal with criminal law, several relate to guardianship, the position of freedmen, and other parts of the law of persons, and nine deal with the law of obligations; none of them of any great importance. Among the ecclesiastical Novels, several groups may be distinguished. One group contains those which deal with the temporal rights and relations of the church and her ministers as holders of property. Eight constitutions may be referred to it, most of which are occupied with the length of time needed for a good title to lands originally belonging to the church to be acquired by adverse enjoyment; and with the conditions under which ecclesiastical lands might be alienated for a term or in perpetuity. Both topics gave Justinian much trouble and he was sometimes obliged to modify his enactments. A second group comprises constitutions merely local in application, referring to a particular province (e.g. Nov.37 to Africa), church (e.g. Nov.3 to the Great Church of Constantinople, Nov.40 to the Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem), or see (e.g. Nov.11 to the privileges of the archiepiscopal chair of Justiniana Prima in Illyricum). To a third and more important group may be referred the 13 constitutions dealing with ecclesiastical organization and discipline, the mode of choosing bishops and other clerics, their qualifications, the jurisdiction of bishops, the restrictions on the jurisdiction of civil courts in causes where clerics are concerned (a matter of great interest in view of the questions which were to occupy medieval Europe), the rights, immunities, and position generally of the clergy (e.g. the exemption of a bishop from patria potestas, Nov.81, the devolution of the property of a cleric dying intestate without legal heirs, Nov.131, § 13), the regulations under which a church or oratory might be built, endowed, and consecrated, the internal discipline of monasteries and regulation of monastic life. A fourth and last group includes four ordinances levelled at heretics (a good many provisions affecting whom incidentally occur in other Novels, especially in those of the third group). One of these four, called Edictum de Fide, is a short appeal to heretics to return to te safe teaching and anathematizings of the Catholic church (Nov.132); another is directed against Jews and Samaritans, refusing them immunities from public burdens such as their exclusion from public offices and honours might otherwise have appeared to imply (Nov.45); a third deprives heretic women of the privileges granted by Justinian's laws to women in respect of their dowry; and the fourth is a sentence of deposition and anathema against Anthimus patriarch of Constantinople, Severus patriarch of Antioch, Peter of Apamea, Zoaras, and others charged with Monophysitism, issued in confirmation of the sentence passed by the synod at Constantinople under the patriarch Mennas in 536. The most generally remarkable characteristics of these ecclesiastical statutes, apart from their spirit of bitter intolerance, are the strong disposition to favour the church, the clerical order, and the monastic life; and the assumption throughout of a complete right of control by the imperial legislator over all sorts of ecclesiastical affairs and questions. Although there are some matters, such as ritual, penance, etc., touched not at all or very slightly, still the impression conveyed here, as in the Codex, is that the civil power claimed a universal and paramount right of legislating for the church; nor is there any distinction laid down or recognized between matters reserved for the legislative action of the church in her synods and those which the emperor may deal with. He always speaks with the utmost respect of the sacred canons, sometimes quotes them, professes to confirm them, and (Nov.131 § 1) expressly declares that all the canons of the four great general councils are to have the force and rank of laws (taxin nomon epechein). But there is no admission of the exclusive right of the church or of any ecclesiastical dignitary or body to legislate on any particular topics; this is indeed implicitly excluded by the laws, especially those in bk. i. of the Codex, which deal with the most specially spiritual of spiritual questions, the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. It is therefore not surprising that the African bishops who wrote against him in the matter of the Three Articles complain of his conduct as arrogating to the magistrate what belonged of right to the duly constituted officers of the church. Subsequent history shows that the Eastern emperor always maintained his authority over the church; while different political conditions enabled the Western patriarch and the Western church generally to throw off the control of the civil power and even extend its own jurisdiction over civil causes.

These ecclesiastical Novels throw much light on the state of the 6th-cent. Eastern church, and the evils which it was thought necessary to remedy. We hear once or twice of the ignorance of the clergy, persons being sometimes ordained who could not read the prayers used in the sacramental services of the Supper and Baptism (Novs.6, 137). Irregularities in monastic life were frequent, as appears from the penalties threatened (Novs.5, 133). Bishops too often resided away from their sees, so that a prohibition to the administrator to send money to them while absent was needed (Nov.6, § 3; Nova 123, § 9). That a bishop must be unmarried, and a priest either unmarried or married only once and to a virgin, was insisted on. The habit of building churches without funds sufficient for their due maintenance and service is checked (Novs.57, 67), as also that of having private chapels, or celebrating the sacred mysteries in houses (Novs.58, 131). The often neglected canonical direction to hold provincial synods twice, or at least once, a year is renewed (Nov.138). The substance of the enactments contained in these Novels and in the Codex, upon such matters as the election of bishops, celibacy of clergy, permanency of monastic vows, etc., will be found under the appropriate heads in D. C. A. The regulations regarding a monastic life have a special interest as very shortly anterior to the creation of the rule of St. BENEDICT of Nursia, who was a contemporary of Justinian.

[J.B.]

Justinus Martyr, philosopher
Justinus (2) Martyr, St., son of Priscus, grandson of Bacchius; born at Flavia Neapolis, hard by the ruins of ancient Sychem (now Nablous), in Palestine (Apol. i.1). He calls himself a Samaritan (Dial. c.120, § 349 C), so that his family had probably settled there definitely; but he is obviously not a Samaritan by blood or religion; nothing in his writing would point to such an origin. He has not heard, even, of Moses or of the prophets until well on in life; he classes himself among those Gentiles to whom the Gospel was opened so largely when the main mass (Apol. i.53, § 88 B) of the house of Jacob, in which he includes by name the Samaritans as well as the Jews, rejected it. He speaks of being brought up in heathen customs, being uncircumcised (Dial. c.29, § 246 C), and receiving a thoroughly Greek education (Dial. c.2, § 219). The name of his grandfather is Greek; of his father and himself Latin. What we know of him is gathered almost entirely from his own writings, and chiefly from his famous description of the studies through which he passed to his conversion, given in his Dialogue with the New Tryphon. The opening of the Dialogue discovers Justin walking in the colonnades of a city, which Eusebius identifies with Ephesus (H. E. iv.18), shortly after the wars of the Romans against Bar-Cocheba in 132-136 (Dial. c.1, § 217). To the Jew, who greets him as a philosopher, he recounts his philosophic experiences, though we gain but little clue as to where or at what time these experiences occurred. He speaks of his first longing to share in that wisdom |which is verily the highest possession, the most valued by God, to Whom it alone leads and unites us|; when with this hope he went successively to a Stoic teacher, a Peripatetic, and a famous Pythagorean, but in each case to no purpose. Much grieved at this, he thought of trying the Platonics, whose fame stood high. He went chiefly to one lately settled in his town, who was thought highly of by his school; advanced some way with him, giving him the greater part of every day; was delighted with the perception of the Incorporeal; the contemplation of the Ideas |gave wings to my mind, quickly I thought to become wise, and expected that, if it were not for my dull sight, I should be in a moment looking upon God; for this sight is the fulfilment of the Platonic philosophy.| |While in this frame of mind I one day had a wish for quiet meditation, away from the beaten track of men, and so went to a bit of ground not far from the sea; and there, just as I was nearing the place where I looked to be alone with my thoughts, an old man, of a pleasant countenance, and with a gentle and dignified mien, came following me a little behind.| The old man asked Justin, |'For what are you come here?' 'I delight,' I answered, 'in these strolls, in which I can hold converse with myself, without interruption; a place like this is most favourable for such talking as I love.' 'Ah! you are a lover of talk, and not of action or of reality,' he said. 'You are one, I suppose, who cares more for reasons than for facts, for words than for deeds.' 'And how, indeed,' I answered, 'can a man act more efficiently than in exhibiting the reason that governs all, or than in laying hold of it, and there, borne aloft on it, looking down on others who stray helplessly below, and do nothing sane, or dear to God? Without philosophy and right reason there is no possible wisdom. Every man, therefore, ought to esteem philosophy as his noblest work, and to let all else come second or third to it; for by philosophy things are made right and acceptable, without it they become common and vulgar.' 'Philosophy, then, is the true cause of happiness, is it?' he asked in reply. 'Yes, indeed, it is,' I said, 'it and it alone.'|

A discussion follows on the possibility of philosophy giving the true knowledge of God, which is Happiness; at its close Justin confesses that his philosophy supplies no clear account of the soul, of its capacity to perceive the Divine, nor of the character of its life; the old man speaks with a decision that he professes to owe neither to Plato nor to Pythagoras, who are the bulwarks of philosophy. What teacher is there who can give certainty where such as these fail? asks Justin. The old man replies that there have been men, far older than all these philosophers, men blessed and upright and beloved of God, who spoke by the spirit of God, and are called Prophets. These alone have seen the truth, and spoken it to men; not as reasoners, for they go higher than all argument, but as witnesses of the truth, who are worthy to be believed, since the events foretold have come to pass and so compel us to rely on their words, as do also the wonders they have worked to the honour and glory of God the Father and of His Christ. |Pray thou, then, that the gates of the Light may be opened too for thee; for these things can only be seen and known by those to whom God and His Christ have given understanding.| Justin saw the old man no more; but in his soul the flame was fired and a passion of love aroused for these prophets, the friends of Christ; and as he reflected upon it he found that here indeed lay the one and only sure and worthy philosophy.

This is all we know of his conversion. The scene is, perhaps, idealized; it has a savour of Plato; but the imagination of Justin was hardly equal to producing, unaided, such vivid detail of scenery and character. The description would imply that he was somewhat advanced in study, but not past the enthusiasms of earlier life. The event, apparently, occurred in Flavia Neapolis, i.e. |our town,| in which the Platonist teacher had settled; but |our town| may mean that in which he and Tryphon were conversing, i.e., according to Eusebius, Ephesus. It must have been before the Bar-Cocheba wars, if it is from them that Tryphon was flying when Justin met him. The conversion takes the form of a passage from the imperfect to the perfect philosophy; throughout his life it retains that impress. He was not rescued from intellectual despair, but was in the highest condition of confidence when the old man met him. The aim with which he started on his studies was achieved when he became a Christian. Hence he is not thrown into an attitude of antagonism to that which he leaves; his new faith does not break with the old so much as fulfil it. He still, therefore, calls himself the philosopher, still invites men to enter his school, still wears the philosopher's cloak (Dial. i. § 217; Eus. H. E. iv.11; cf. the Acts of Justin). From the first, philosophy had been pursued with the religious aim of attaining the highest spiritual happiness by communing with God; the certified knowledge of God, therefore, professed by the prophets, and made manifest in Christ, comes to him as the crown of his existing aspiration.

One other motive he records to have affected his conversion, i.e. his wondering admiration at the steadfastness of Christians under persecution. |When I was still attached to the doctrine of Plato, and used to hear the accusations hurled against Christians, and yet saw them perfectly fearless in the face of death and of all that is terrible, I understood that it was impossible they should be living all the time a life of wickedness and lust| (Apol. ii.12, § 50 A). This appeal, which the moral steadfastness of the Christians had made to him, he continually brings to bear upon others (i.8, § 57; i.11, § 58 E, etc.). Perhaps, too, the lack of moral reality and energy in the doctrines of philosophy was not unfelt by Justin, for his words seem sometimes to recall the old man's taunt, |You are a man of words, and not of deeds| (cf. i.14, § 61 E, |For Christ was no Sophist, but His word was the power of God|).

We have no details of his life after baptism. He seems to have come to Rome, and, perhaps, to have stayed there some time, according to Eusebius (H. E. iv.11). His peculiar office was to bring the Christian apologetic into the publicity of active controversy in the schools. The collision with Tryphon in the Colonnades is probably but a specimen of the intellectual intercourse which Justin challenged by wearing the philosopher's cloak. The introduction to the Dialogue appears to record a familiar habit. The Second Apology mentions a dispute with Crescens the Cynic (3, § 43, B, C). The memory of Justin's characteristic attitude is recorded by Eusebius: |It was then that St. Justin flourished, who, under the dress of a philosopher, preached the word of God, and defended the truth of our faith by his writings as well as by his words|; and the Acts of his martyrdom speak of Justin as sitting in the house of Martinus, a recognized place of meeting for Christians, and there conversing with any who visited him, imparting to them the true doctrine. The persons condemned with him are companions whom he has gathered about him and converted. |I took delight,| says one of them, Evelpistus, |in listening to Justin's discourse.|

When persecution fell sharply upon the church, he was in the van of those who considered it their first duty to make public to their judges the doctrine and life so foully accused (Apol. i.3, § 54). So, in the Dialogue with Tryphon, he speaks of the guilt he would incur before the judgment seat of Christ if he did not freely and ungrudgingly open to them his knowledge of the meaning of Scripture (Dial. c.58, § 280 B).

This freedom of apologetic crowned itself towards the close of Justin's life in the three works which alone can be accepted as undoubtedly authentic: the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. This same freedom brought him to his death.

The secret cause of his seizure is supposed by Eusebius to have been the enmity of an opponent whom he had convicted of ignorance, Crescens the Cynic. |Crescens,| Tatian write, |who made himself a nest in Rome, while professing to despise death, proved his fear of it by scheming to bring Justin and myself to death as to an evil thing| (Or. c.32; cf. Eus. H. E. iv.16). For the reality of his violent death for Christ we have the indubitable testimony of his historic title, Justin Martyr. For the actual account of it we are dependent on the Acts of his martyrdom, which embody, probably without serious change, the simple and forcible tradition which the 3rd cent. retained of the death-scene. They have the appearance of containing genuine matter. According to these, he and his companions are brought before Rusticus, the prefect of the city, and are simply commanded to sacrifice to the gods, without any mention of Crescens, or of Justin's Apologies to the emperors. Justin, on examination, professes to have found the final truth in Christianity, after exploring all other systems; this truth, he declares, consists in adoring the one God, Who has made all things, visible and invisible, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who was foretold by the prophets to be coming into the world to preach salvation and teach good doctrine. He declares that Christians meet wherever they choose or can, seeing that their God is not limited to this or that place, but fills heaven and earth; but that he himself, on this, his second visit to Rome, held meetings for his followers in the house of one Martinus only, near the baths of Timotinus. After a brave refusal to sacrifice, and an assurance of salvation in Christ, he and those with him were condemned to be beaten with rods and beheaded. They died praising God and confessing their Saviour. The faithful secretly carried their bodies to a fit burial.

Such are the fragments left to us of his life; between what dates do they fall? The title of the First Apology is decisive; it is addressed to the |Emperor Titus Aelius Antoninus Pius, Augustus, Caesar; to Verissimus his son, philosopher, and to Lucius, the natural son of a philosophic Caesar, the adopted son of a pious Caesar.| Here we have Antoninus Pius as sole emperor, with his two imperial companions, adopted by him as sons at the request of Hadrian, i.e. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. [trans.] vol. ii.446, 1851). With this the Eusebian tradition agrees; according to it, the first Apology was addressed to Antoninus; in the Chronicon it is assigned to c.141, the fourth of that reign. Antoninus reigned from 137 to 161; will 141 suit Justin's language?

According to some, this is not early enough, for the title omits to salute Aurelius as Caesar, which he became publicly in 140. Against this lie several weighty objections: (1) Lucius Verus is called, possibly philosopher, certainly |erastes paideias,| lover of culture; but by 140 he is only ten years old. (2) Marcion is in the Apology the greatest type of heresy, |with a following spread over every race of men.| Justin's language seems to belong to a time when Marcion's pre-eminence had overshadowed the earlier heretics (cf. Lipsius, Die Quellen der Ketzergeschichte, 1875, pp.21, 22), and this could hardly be till well after 140. It was under Antoninus (according to general authority, cf. Tertullian, Clement, etc.) that Marcion succeeded in putting himself .in the front, and arrived at Rome. Yet, already before the Apology, Justin has written a book against him, with other heretics (Apol. i.26, § 70 C). It is difficult to attribute to Marcion this immense position in the very first years of Antoninus (cf. contra. Semisch, Justin, p.73, 1840). (3) Justin professes to be writing 150 years after our Lords birth, a round number, it is true, but in a context where the object is to diminish the interval. Without very positive evidence against it, the year 148 -- i.e. Justin's A.D.150 -- should be taken as the approximate date. These reasons would place the first Apology near the end of the first half of the reign of Antoninus. This would not conflict with two other references to times -- to the deification of Antoninus, i.e.131 (Apol. i.29, § 72), and to the wars of Bar-Cocheba, 132, 136 (31, § 72). Both have the same formula: to nun gegenemeno polemo and Antinoou tou nun gegenemenou. The expression is vague, but requires the two events to be well within the memories of Justin's readers.

The address of the second Apology has at last, after many confusions, been determined to refer to Antoninus again, and Marcus Aurelius. It is indirect, and found in 2, § 42 C, where a single emperor is definitely meant, and in the last chapter, where the rulers are spoken of in the plural; in 2, § 43 B there are two people in office, Pius the autokrator, and a philosopher, who is saluted as son of Caesar; and continued reference is made to the mingled piety and philosophy of these personages. These two, with the well-known titles, can hardly be other than Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius. This is made almost a certainty when we consider that the second Apology seems to have followed close upon the first and bears all the mark of a sequel or appendix (cf. Volkmar, in Theolog. Jahrb.1855, N.14; cf. Hort, in Journ. of Classic and Sacred Philol. vol. iii. p.155 (1857), of which much use is made in the art.). This is clear, among other things, from the references in the second to the first Apology (Apol. ii.4, § 43; 6, § 45; 8, § 46) as to a writing close at hand and freshly remembered. The date of the Apologies may be thrown back as far in the reign of Antoninus as is consistent with the prominence attributed to Marcion.

Of the date of Justin's birth we have nothing certain. Epiphanius states that he died when 30 years old. The evidence is not forthcoming. For the date of his conversion we have scarcely any evidence except that it was before the wars of Bar-Cocheba, 132-136 (Dial. i.1, § 217) Eusebius supposes he was unconverted at the date of Antinous, A.D.131 (H. E. iv.8), but it is doubtful if Eusebius had any ground for this except Apol. i.29, § 72, which certainly does not require it.

The genuineness of the three writings already mentioned is universally accepted. The first Apology definitely pronounces itself to be Justin's; the second obviously belongs to the first; the Dialogue claims to be written by a Samaritan, who had addressed the emperor -- its personal history of the writer exactly tallies with Justin's attitude towards philosophy in the Apologies. The peculiar phrase apomnemoneumata ton Apostolon occurs in these three works, and in them alone. The whole tone of the works agrees with the period assigned. The external evidence gathered by Eusebius is strong and unbroken (cf. Eus. H. E. iv.18).

But it is otherwise with an Oratio ad Graecos; a logos parainetikos pros Hellenas, Cohortatio ad Graecos; a fragment, peri Anastaseos; and a book, peri Monarchias, which must be classed as very doubtful; others are decidedly not genuine.

Several works of Justin have been entirely lost: (1) The book Against all Heresies, to which he refers in Apol. i.26, § 70. (2) Against Marcion, referred to by Irenaeus (iv. contra Haer. c.14; cf. v.26), supposed by some to be part of (1). (3) A book called Psaltes, and (4) peri psuches, in which he contrasts his own doctrine with that of the Greek philosophers (Eus. H. E. iv.18).

|Many other works of his,| says Eusebius, |are in the hands of the brethren.| Evidently he must have written a great deal, and the three undoubted works still extant perhaps account for this voluminous character of his writings. For these three pieces are written loosely and unsystematically, and read like the outpouring of a mind that had ranged widely in heathen literature and philosophy, and had massed a large store of general knowledge, which could be easily and effectively brought to bear upon current topics, without any scrupulous regard to the artistic or symmetrical appearance of the result.

Justin's writing, especially in the first Apology, is full of direct and striking force; it moves easily and pleasingly; his thinking is fresh, healthy, vigorous, and to the point; his wide knowledge is used with practical skill; his whole tone and character are immensely attractive by their genuineness, simplicity, generous high-mindedness, and frank and confident energy.

In the first Apology, composed with much more care and completeness than the second, he defines and justifies his position of apologist before the rulers, with supreme dignity, and confidence. He calls upon them to let it be seen whether they are the loyal guardians of right and lovers of culture, which they are reported to be. He demands for himself and his fellows the justice of an exact and critical examination, without regard to prejudice, superstition, irrational panic, or any long-established evil fame. It is, as it were, for the sake of the governors and their justice that he seems to be asking a trial, for, |as for us Christians,| he proudly declares, |we do not consider that we can suffer any ill from any one, unless we are convicted of wickedness or evil-doing; you can kill us indeed, but damage us you cannot| (Apol. i.2, 54 A); |Princes who prefer prejudice to truth can do no more harm than robbers in a desert| (Apol. i.12, § 59 E). So he opens his Apology, which can be roughly divided into three divisions, cc.3-23, in which he refutes, generally, the false charges made against Christianity; cc.23-61 exhibiting the truth of the Christian system and how it has got misunderstood; cc.61-68 revealing the character of Christian worship and customs.

The charges against the Christians, encountered in pt. i., are: (1) The very fact of Christianity is itself treated as a punishable crime (c. iv.). (2) Atheism (c. vi.). How can they with any justice be called atheists, who reverence and worship the Father of all Righteousness, the Son Who came from the Father and taught us this, the whole Host of Angels and the Prophetical Spirit? |These are they whom we honour in reason and truth, offering our knowledge of them to all who will learn of us.| (3) That some Christians have been proved malefactors. Yes, very likely, for we all are called Christians however much we vary. Therefore let every one be tried on his merits. If convicted of evil, let him pay the penalty, only as an evil-doer, not as a Christian. If innocent of crime, let him be acquitted though a Christian. (4) Christians are charged with aiming at a kingdom. But this can hardly be a kingdom on earth; for, then, we should be ruining all our hopes of it by our willingness to die for Christ. Yet we never attempt to conceal our faith; and here Justin makes a direct appeal. |Surely,| he cries, |we are the best friends that a ruler could desire, we who believe in a God Whose eye no crime can escape, no falsehood deceive; we who look for an eternal judgment, not only on our deeds, but even on our thoughts! So our Master, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has taught us.| For the reality and true character of this faith in God through Christ, he offers the proof of the Christian's moral conversion. |We who once delighted in adultery, now are become chaste; once given to magic, now are consecrated to the one good God; once loving wealth above all things, now hold all our goods in common, and share them with the poor; once full of hatred and slaughter, now live together in peace, and pray for our enemies, and strive to convert our persecutors.| All this is emphasised by our belief in the resurrection of the body, in which we shall hereafter suffer pain for all our sins done here (c.18). Is this incredible? Yet it is believed not only by us, but by all who turn to magic rites, to spiritualists, to witches, to frenzied seers, to oracles at Dodona or Delphi; by Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates, by Homer and Virgil.

Here begins a defence of Christian doctrine, on the ground of its likeness to doctrines already held in heathenism (c.21). We alone are hated, even though we hold the same as the Greeks; we alone are killed for our faith, even though we do nothing bad.

(C.30.) He turns to a new objection. |How do you know the genuineness of your Christ, or that He was not some clever magic-worker?| Justin's answer is, by the proof of prophecy. The books of the Jews, translated in the LXX, in spite of the bitter hatred of the Jews against us, speak, years before the event, of us and of our Christ.

(C.46.) A new objection: were all men irresponsible before 150 years ago, when Christ was born under Quirinus? No; there were Christians before Christ, men who lived in the power of the Word of God, Socrates and Heraclitus, Abraham and Elias.

(C.56.) The demons have deceived men before Christ by the tales of Polytheism; and, after Christ, by the impieties of Simon, Menander, and Marcion: but have never been able to make men disbelieve in the end of the world and the judgment to come, nor to conceal the advent of Christ.

(Cc.61-67.) He has spoken of Faith in Christ and Regeneration of Life; he will now tell what this exactly means; and so proceeds to describe the baptism by which the regeneration is effected; the reasons for this rite; its accomplishment in the Name of the Nameless God called the Father, in the Name of the Son Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the Name of the Holy Spirit Who spake by the Prophets. He describes (c.65) the Eucharistic Feast to which the baptized are admitted, and gives a brief account of the character to be attributed to the bread and wine then consecrated and of the authority on which this rests.

He speaks once more of the feast, as it recurs on the Sundays, when they all assemble together, and (c.68) closes rather abruptly, with the personal directness which throughout gives dignity to the Apology. |If my words seem to you agreeable to reason and truth, then give them their due value; if they strike you as trifling, then treat them lightly as trifles; but, at least, do not decree death against those who do nothing wrong, as if they were enemies of the state. For, if you continue in iniquity, we foretell that you will not be able to escape the future judgment of God; we shall be content to cry, God's will be done!|

He adds an epistle of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, by which he could claim a fair trial; but he would rather ask that as a matter of plain justice than by right of law or precedent. This letter of Hadrian's, we are told by Eusebius, was preserved by Justin in its Latin form (H. E. iv.8), and thrown by him into Greek. Its style suits the age of Hadrian (Otto, ed. of Justin, vol. i. note on p.190); it is considered genuine by Aubé, Ueberweg, doubted by Keim (Theol. Jahrb. t. xv. Tüb.1856, p.387). It gives so little to the Christians, that it seems hardly likely to be fictitious.

The second Apology, possibly an appendix to the first (Otto, ed. p. lxxxi.; Volkmar, Baur and Zell. Theolog. Jahrb. t. xiv. Tüb.1855; Keim, Protest. K.-Z. Ber.1873, n.28, col.619), anyhow written at no long interval after the first, begins abruptly with an appeal directly to the Romans, but in reality addressed to the imperial rulers (cf. cc.3, 14, 15), together with the whole people. These rulers, under whom the affairs which led to the Apology occurred, are, it has been argued, the emperor Pius and the philosopher Marcus Aurelius, and, according to a suggested reading, Lucius Verus son of Caesar. The opening betrays by its suddenness, and emphasizes by dwelling on the speed with which the Apology had been produced, the excitement under which it was composed. |Things had happened within the last two days in Rome,| such as the irrational actions of the magistrates, which had driven Justin to write an Apology for his own people, who are, though the Romans know it not and will not have it, their brothers, of like feelings with themselves.

(C.2.) He relates the case which had so fired him with indignation; it is very typical of what Christians were subject to. The dissolute wife of a dissolute man is converted and is anxious to separate from her husband. He holds out some hopes of amendment, so she forces herself to remain, but he plunges into worse debauchery. She sends a writ of divorce and leaves him. Then this |good and noble husband| bethought himself of accusing her of being a Christian. While her case was pending, a certain Ptolemaus, the wife's master in the faith, whom Urbicus had imprisoned, is challenged with being a Christian. Ptolemaus, brought up before Urbicus, is asked, |Are you a Christian?| and on confessing it is at once condemned to death. Lucius a Christian publicly challenges Urbicus to justify a decision which punished a man simply for the name of Christian. |You, too, are a Christian, I suppose?| is the only answer he gets from Urbicus; and on confessing it he is condemned to death, declaring as he goes that he is glad to be free of rulers so unjust and to depart to the Father and King of Heaven. A third in the same way passes to a like punishment; |And I myself,| breaks in Justin, |look for the same fate, for I, too, have enemies who have a grudge against me, and are likely enough to take this way of avenging themselves; Crescens especially, the sham philosopher, whom I have convicted of entire ignorance about the Christianity which he slanders.|

(C.4.) It may be said in scorn, |Be off, then, to your God to Heaven by killing yourselves, and trouble us no longer!| But Christians believe the world to be made by God to fulfil His purpose; they are not at liberty to destroy, as far as in them lies, the human race, for whom the world was created. Nor yet can we deny our faith; for this would be to allow its guilt and to lie, and would leave you in your evil prejudices.

(C.5.) |Why does God not help His own?| He spares to punish and destroy the evil world, for the sake of this holy seed, the Christians, who are the real reason why God still preserves the order of nature, which the fallen angels have so corrupted.

The effect of these Apologies upon the rulers of Rome is unknown; but Justin's expectation of death was not disappointed, and Marcus Aurelius still mistrusted the motives which made Christians martyrs and saw no reason to stay the outcry of the Roman crowd when it demanded Christian victims. It remained a legal crime to be a Christian. Indeed, according to Roman ideas of government, it could hardly cease to be criminal as long as Christianity continued its private and peculiar organization and found it impossible to conform to the tests of good citizenship, such as the oath to the emperor. The Apologies never hint at concession on such points, but persist that their present position is entirely innocent. Their vigour must have revealed the irreconcilability of Christian life with the mass of pagan custom and temper in which the solidity of Rome had its foundation.

The Dialogue with Trypho follows the first Apology, and probably the second also, between 142 and 148 according to Hort; in 155 (Volkmar); or in 160-164 (Keim). It was written to report to a dear friend, Marcus Pompeius (cf. c.8, § 225 D; c.141, § 371 B), a discussion which Justin had held with the Jews during the Bar-Cocheba wars. The discussion represents the Christian polemic against the Jews; but Trypho makes his advance as a philosopher rather than as a Jew, and it is Justin who turns the talk to the Jewish Scriptures by expressing his surprise at a Jew being still engaged in searching for truth in the pagan philosophers when he possessed already in those Scriptures the authorized exponent of revealed wisdom, for the sake of whose secured certainty Justin himself had left all other human systems. Trypho is, indeed, a curious type of Judaism; a light and superficial inquirer in the courts of the schools, surrounded by a band of loud and lively friends, he begins with a reference to a Socratic at Argos, who had taught him to address courteously all who wore the philosopher's cloak, in the hope of finding, through the pleasant interchange of thoughts, something useful to both. He smiles gracefully as he inquires what opinion Justin holds about the gods, and, apparently, justifies his philosophic studies in the face of Scripture, by claiming that the philosophers are equally with Moses searchers after the Being of God. The noisy friends having been avoided by retirement to a quiet seat, Trypho opens the question with the air of a free and tolerant seeker after truth; he has read the Gospel, and found in it a morality too high for real practice, and is ready to acknowledge the piety of the better Christians. What he wonders at is that with so much goodness, they should nevertheless live as Gentiles without keeping the pure laws of God, e.g. the Sabbath and circumcision, by which He separates the holy from sinners; he wonders, too, how those who place their hope in a man can yet hope for a reward from God. He would gladly have all this explained (cf. c.57, § 280 A; c.68, § 293 A). Trypho, then, is no fierce Jewish opponent, prepared to attack, but adopts the tone almost of an inquirer. It is the Jew under a new aspect that we find here, the Jew of culture, of open and tolerant mind, with the easy courtesy of the literary world. Before such, apparent openness and easy-going lightness it is perhaps not without artistic skill that Justin hints at the fierce and implacable hatred of Jew against Christian which had tortured and slain Christians without pity under Bar-Cocheba and made Jews everywhere the most violent and remorseless of the church's slanderers and persecutors (c.108, § 335).

The Dialogue takes two days. Some fresh friends of Trypho join him on the second day (c.118, § 346 C); he speaks sometimes of them as if only two, at other times as if many. One is named Mnaseas (c.85, § 312). They shout disapproval once, as if in a theatre (c.122, § 351 A). The whole is spoken as they sit on some stone seats in the gymnasium, Justin being about to sail on a voyage.

The actual argument begins at c.10. The points especially raised by Trypho were two, i.e. how the Christians could profess to serve God and yet (1) break God's given law, and (2) believe in a human Saviour (cf. c.10, § 227 D). The purity of Christian living is acknowledged; the problem is its consistency with its creed.

Justin's argument may be roughly divided into three parts (Otto, Prolegomena). In cc.11-47 he refutes Trypho's conception of the binding character of the Jewish law, which refutation involves him also in a partial answer to the second part of the problem, i.e. the nature of the Christ in Whom they trust; for the passing away of the Law turns on the character of the Christ of Whom it prophesies. In cc.48-105 he expounds the absolute divinity of Christ, His pre-existence, incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension, by virtue of which the belief in Him is proved consistent with belief in God alone. In c.109 he passes to the necessary outcome of these two principles -- the conversion of the Gentiles, the new Israel, and the abandonment of the old Israel, unless they accept the new covenant. The whole is rested on the Scriptures, on the interpretation of prophecy. Justin starts with a claim to believe absolutely in the God of Israel; here is his common ground with Trypho (c.11) -- both accept the old revelation (c.68, § 298 A; cf.57, § 279 B; 56, § 277 D). |I should not endure your argument,| Trypho says (c.56, § 277 D), |unless you referred all to the Scriptures; but I see you try to find all your reasons in them, and announce no other God but the Supreme Creator of the world.|

The Dialogue, therefore, is a perfect storehouse of early Christian interpretation of Scripture. This forms its wonderful value; it carries us back to that first effort at interpretation which dates from St. Peter's speech at the election of Matthias, and knits itself so closely with the walk to Emmaus, when the Scriptures were first opened and it was seen from them that Christ must suffer. The O.T. is still the sacred guide and continual companion of the Christian life, the type of the written revelation; everything is there. Yet by the side of it we already feel in Justin that a new power has appeared, a fresh canon is forming, another book is beginning to assert itself. The work is full of crucial interest, just because Justin appears at the moment when this is gradually becoming clear.

In the two Apologies and the Dialogue Justin covers a large part of the theological field. His treatment is peculiarly typical of the earliest form of Christian speculation outside and beyond the immediate lines laid down by the apostolic writings. The apostolic Fathers were rather practical than speculative. The doctrinal works of people like Melito of Sardis are lost. In the Apologists Christianity, according to its preserved records, first prominently applies itself to the elucidation of its dogmatic position, and of them Justin is among the earliest and the most famous. But in considering his theology we must remember that we only possess his exoteric utterances. He is not spontaneously developing the Christian's creed, but is striving, under the stress of a critical emergency, to exhibit it most effectively and least suspiciously to an alien and unsympathetic audience, prepared not merely to discuss but to judge and kill. The whole position tended to quicken the natural tendency of Justin's mind towards an optimistic insistence on likenesses and agreements, rather than on differences between himself and his opponents. This is not said to discredit his utterances, but simply in order to consider them, as all intelligent criticism must consider them, under their actual historical conditions. Justin is on what is yet new ground to a great extent; he is pioneering, he is venturing along unmarked and unexamined roads. Christian doctrine is still forming itself under his hands, even on some essential and cardinal points.

Justin's Theology, then, begins in the presence of (1) Jewish Monotheism, and (2) of the Primal and Absolute and Universal Cause of all Existence, posited by the philosophic consciousness of paganism. He has to state how his conception of the Deity stands to these.

He answers, that he believes (1) in a God identical with the God of the Jews: |There is no other God, nor ever has been, but He Who made and ordered the Universe; that very God Who brought your fathers, Trypho, out of Egypt, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob| (Dial.11, § 228 A). his God of creation is the one cause of all existence, therefore known as the Father: ho pater ton holon (ib.114, § 342 A), or ton panton (Apol. i.8, § 57 A). In Apol. ii.6, § 44 D, he sums up all the names by which the absolute God may be known, pater, Theos, ktistes, kurios, despotes. This is his cardinal and prevailing expression for God the Father -- that He is the Maker and Ordainer and Lord of all creation. (2) But, besides the Father, Justin undertakes to exhibit the Divinity of a Second Person, the Son, ho monos legomenos kurios huios (Apol. ii.6, § 44). huion autou tou ontos Theou (ib. i.13, § 60 C), to whom is allotted the second place, in honour and worship, after the atrepton kai aei onta Theon gennetora ton hapanton. He is, primarily, ho Logos, the Word of God, with God before creation began, sunen to patri pro panton ton poiematon (Dial.62, § 285 D). With Him the Father communicated (prosomilei), having begotten Him before all things (gennema hupo tou Theou egegenneto). The manner of this begetting is spoken of as a projection (to onti apo tou patros problethen gennema). Such is the Logos, called by Solomon the Wisdom, who co-existed with the Father at that moment when, at the beginning, by Him the Father made and perfected all things (Apol. ii.6, § 44 E; Dial.62, § 285 D). He it is Who is ho Theos, apo tou patros ton holon genngtheis, and Who is known as the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Power, and the Glory of Him Who begat Him (Dial.61, § 284 A, B). The Son is the instrument of |Creation| (di autou panta ektise); hence (in addition to His primal names, Logos, Huios) called Christos, kata to kechristhai ta panta di auton; but this name is in itself of unknown significance, just as the title |God| is no real name, but rather expresses a natural opinion, inborn in man, about an unutterable fact. Christ's Being, therefore, as well as the Father's, is beyond all human expression, and is known only economically; for, if this is true of the title Christos, it can hardly but be true of the higher names, Logos and Huios. This Logos is identical with the Man Jesus, conceived through the will of the Father on behalf of man, named Jesus as being a Man and a Saviour. Justin holds, then, the entire Divinity of Him Who was born a Man and crucified under Pontius Pilate. Nothing can be more pronounced or decided than his position; it is brought to the front by the necessities of his arguments both with the Jew and the Gentile. He starts with this position, that he worships as God, a man Christ Jesus; it is this that he has to justify to the Gentile (cf. Apol. i.21, 22, § 67). |In that we say,| he says, |that the Word, Which is the first-begotten of God, has been born without human mixture, as Jesus Christ, our Master, Who was crucified and died, and rose again;| or, again, |Jesus Christ, Who alone was begotten to be the only Son of God, being the Word of God, and the first-born and the Power of God (prototokos kai dunamis), became Man by the will of the Father, and taught us these things.| He justifies the possibility of these statements to the emperors by appeals to Greek mythology, i.e. he is so fast bound to this belief that he has to run the risk of all the discredit that will attach to it in the minds of the philosophic statesmen to whom he is appealing from its likeness to the debasing fables which their intellectualism either rationalized or discarded. That Justin is conscious of this risk of discredit is clear from cc.53 and 54 of the first Apology, with which we may compare the taunt of Trypho (Dial.67, § 219 B). So again, in the Dialogue, it is the Christian worship of a man that puzzles Trypho; and the first necessity for Justin is to exhibit the consistency of this with the supreme monarchy of God. |First shew me,| asks Trypho (ib. c.50), |how you can prove there is any other God besides the Creator of the universe?| and this not in any economical sense, but verily and indeed (cf. ib.55, § 274 C); and Justin accepts the task, undertaking to exhibit Jesus, the Christ, born of a virgin, as Theos kai Kurios ton dunameon (ib.36, § 254 E), to shew Him to be, at the same time, both Theos kai Kurios, and also aner kai anthropos (ib.59, § 382 C). The rigour with which this is posited may be tested by the crucial case of the appearance to Abraham at Mamre. Here, it is allowed, after a little discussion, that no angelic manifestation satisfies the language used by Scripture. It is certainly God Himself Who is spoken of. Justin undertakes to prove that this cannot be God the Father, but must be other than He Who created all things -- |other,| he means, |in number, in person, not in will or spirit| (ib.56, § 276 D, heteros, arithmo lego all' ou gnome). So, again, he applies to this Divine Being the tremendous words delivered to Moses from the midst of the burning bush, and he will not suffer this to be qualified or weakened by any such subtle distinctions as Trypho attempts to draw between the angel seen of Moses and the voice of God that spoke. He insists, against any such subtleties, that whatever Presence of God was actually there manifested was the Presence, not of the Supreme Creator, Who cannot be imagined to have left His Highest Heaven, but of that Being Who, being God, announces Himself to Moses as the God Who had shewn Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To Him, therefore, apply the words |I am that I am.| By these two cases, specimens of a hundred others drawn from Law and Psalm and Prophets, it will be seen how clearly the problem was present to Justin, and how definitely he had envisaged its solution so far as the O.T. was concerned; in direct collision with the Monotheism of the Jew, he defends himself, not by withdrawing or modifying his assertions, but by discovering the evidence for His dual Godhead in the very heart of the ancient Revelation itself; not in any by-ways or minor incidents, but in the very core and centre of those most essential manifestations of God to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Joshua, on the truth of which the whole fabric of Jewish faith and worship was reared.

Justin has next to consider in what relation these two Divine Beings stand to each other. Given the existence of a Second Person Who can so effectually identify Himself with the First as to be called ho Theos, how can we conceive the harmony and unity of such a duality? Justin is clear that the distinction between the two Beings is real; it is a numerical distinction. The Word is no mere emanation of the Father, inseparable from Him as the light is inseparable from the sun. He is a real subsistence, born of the Father's Will (Dial.128, § 358 B). The words used, therefore, to express their relation are words of companionship, of intercourse, of sunen, prosomilei (cf. ib.62, § 285 C, D, where he brings out the fact of this personal intercourse as involved in the consultations at the creation of man). They are two distinct Beings, but yet must be One in order not to dissolve the absoluteness of the only Godhead. Such a unity may be pictured by the connexion between a thought and the Reason that thinks it, or by the unity of a flame with the fire from which it was taken. Each of these examples of the unbroken unity has the shortcoming that they compel us to think of a stage prior to the dual condition in which that which is now dual was single. What, then, of the existence of the Word before It became the problethen gennema? Justin is content with the statements: (1) That |before all things,| already |at the beginning,| this projection had been effected, the two Persons were already distinct (cf. ib.62, § 285 D; 56, § 276 C, ton kai pro poieseos kosmou onta Theon). (2) That besides this actual projection of the Logos there is a state which may be described as a condition of inner companionship with God the Creator (sunen). This precedence is never distinctly asserted to be temporal by Justin. In the Dialogue the sunon is stated to be eternal in exactly that sense in which the gennema is eternal, i.e. as being |before all things.|

Justin does not appear to definitely pronounce on the question how the process of Begetting consists with the absolute eternity of the Personal Word begotten. There is no precise realization of a Logos endiathetos and prophorikos. He hardly seems conscious of this difficulty in his two analogies of the thought and the flame; he is satisfied with expressing, by them, the unity, and yet distinctness, of the Father and the Son. He is content to state that this unity in difference existed from the very first, before all created things. His analysis seems hardly to have pressed back to the final question, which Arian logic discovered to lie behind all minor issues, i.e. was there a moment when the Father was not yet a Father? Such a suspension of analysis is not unnatural, since Justin, in the writings before us, hardly enters on the contemplation of the Nature of God in and to Himself. It is always as the source of all things -- the Father, the Maker, the Lord of the Universe -- that he presents God to us. It is God in His relation to His works that we contemplate. What He was in Himself before all His works does not seem considered, and it is therefore all the more sufficient to state that God came to the making of the world already dual in character. The moment at which creation was to begin found the Son already existent, as ho Theos, in personal intercourse with the Father. With this he leaves us, only affirming that that character of paternity which constitutes the relation of God to the world had a prior and peculiar significance and reality in the relation that united the absolute God and His Word (cf. Apol. ii.6, § 44, ho monos legomenos kurios huios).

Justin's metaphysic, then, culminates in the assertion of this essential Sonship pre-existent to the creation. This being so, his language remains as indecisive on the ulterior question of the origin of the Sonship as is the language of Proverbs on the eternity of the Wisdom. In both cases the utmost expression for eternity that their logic had attained to is used. It is useless to press them for an answer to the puzzles of a later logic, which carried the problem back into that very eternity which closed their horizon. It was inevitable that the natural and unsystematized language used before the Arian controversy should be capable of an Arian interpretation. Since the Father is indeed alone agenetos, the sole unoriginate fount of the Divine life, the expressions used about Him, and about the Son, must necessarily impute to Him an underivative, to the Son a derivative Being; and must, therefore, tend to class the Son rather with the rest of ta geneta than with the sole ageneton. It could only be at the end of a most subtle and delicate reflection that Christian logic could possibly realize that it was bound, if it would be finally consistent with itself, to class the derived Being of the Son, by virtue of the absolute eternity of its derivation, on the side of to ageneton rather than on that of ta geneta. Justin, in the full flush of readiness to sweep in to the service of faith the dear and familiar language of his former Platonism, may have left himself unguarded and careless on this uttermost point of the philosophy of the Incarnation; but it will not easily be doubted -- by any one who has observed how he develops the full divinity of the Son over all the ground which his logic covered with a boldness and a vigour that, in face of the inevitable obstacles, prejudices, misunderstandings excited by such a creed, are perfectly astonishing -- what answer he would have given if the final issue of the position had once presented itself definitely to him.

Justin had also affirmed the moral unity of the Son with the Father. This is not stated to be the ground of the Unity. The analogies of the thought and of the flame, on the contrary, imply a unity of substance to be the ground of the kurios huiotes, but it is introduced in order to explain the consistency of his belief with the reality of a single supreme Will in the Godhead (Dial.56, § 274), and the explanation naturally led him to affirm the complete subordination of the Son to the will of the Father. The Son is the expression of the Father's mind, the dunamin logiken, which He begat from Himself. He is the interpreter of His Purpose, the instrument by which He designs. In everything, therefore, the Son is conditioned by the supreme Will; His office, His very nature, is to be ho angelos, ho huperetes. All His highest titles, huios and logos, as well as others, belong to Him by virtue of His serving the Father's purpose and being born by the Father's Will (ek tou apo tou patros thelesei gegenesthai, ib.61, § 284 B). |I say that He never did anything but what the Maker of the world, above Whom there is no God at all, willed that He should do| (ib.56, § 276). The Father is above all. Trypho would not endure to listen to Justin if he did not hold this (ib.56, § 278 B). The Son is then subordinate, and perfectly subordinate, but this subordination is such that it can allow the Son to identify Himself utterly with the Father, as with Moses at the bush, and so to be called ho Kurios and ho Theos.

In the expression |born of the Father's Will| we are once more close to Arian controversy. Was there, then, a moment when the Father had not yet willed to have a Son? If so, how can the Son be eternal? Yet, if not, how was the Father's will free? Justin has no such questions put to him. He states this dependence of the Son for His very Being on the Will of the Father without anxiety as to His right to be named ho Theos, and to receive worship in the absolute sense in which a Jew would understand that title and that worship. And here, again, surely it was inevitable that the Christian consciousness should have so stated frankly the subordinate and dependent character of the eternal Sonship, before it appreciated the subtle puzzle that would ensue when logic began its critical work upon the novel and double-sided conception. Subordination of the Son to the Father must represent the immediate, primary, natural, and intelligible method of presenting to the reflecting mind the reconciliation of the duality of Persons with the unity of Will. The very name of Son, or of the Word, implied it. So far, too, the logic inherited from the philosophies would supply the needful formula. It would take time to discover that Christianity held implicitly, in its faith in the entire Divinity of the Son, a position which, if ever it was to be made consistent with the explicit formula of the subordination, must necessitate an entirely new and original logical effort, such as would justify the synthesis already achieved by the Christian's intuitive belief in the absolute Divinity of a dependent and subordinate Son. This new logical effort was made when Athanasius recognized the dilemma into which the old logic of the Schools had thrown the Christian position, and, instead of abandoning either of the alternatives, evolved a higher logic, which could accept both. For it must be remembered, if we are to be impartial to Justin, that the Nicene controversy was not closed by the church throwing over the subordination, while the Arian threw over the entire Divinity of the Son. Nicaea confessed the subordination, and made it theoretically consistent with the absolute Divinity. This being so, the only possible test by which to try Justin (who certainly held both the divinity and the subordination) would be to ask whether, if he had seen the dilemma, he would have held the subordination of the Son to be the primary and imperative truth to the logical needs of which the fulness of the divine Sonship must be thrown over, or whether he would have felt the latter truth to be so intimately essential that a novel logic must be called into existence which should interpret it into accordance with the subordination. It cannot but be felt that Justin's faith is a great deal more pronounced and definite than his Platonic logic; that the one is clear and strong where the other is vague and arbitrary; and, if so, that in a conflict between the two his faith would have remained supreme. Justin's temper of mind is the complete reverse of that of Arius.

On the ministerial activities of the Son for the Father Justin is much more explicit.

The Word has one chief mission from the Father, that of interpreting Him to man; hence He received the name of angelos (cf. Dial.56, § 275). He accomplishes this (1) to the Jews by means of the Theophanies and through the lips of the prophets. The Word is the direct inspirer Whose spirit moves the prophets, and Whose words they speak (cf. Apol. i.36, § 76 D). The whole manifold Scripture, with all its many parts and voices, is, as it were, a great play written by a single author, the Word of God, Who alone speaks through all the characters displayed. Of this Justin gives instances in cc.37, 38, 39. Again, He is not only the inward force, but the outward object also, to Which all prophecy is directed. The Jewish Scripture has in Him a permanent aim, a fixed canon; it all arranges itself round Him (cf. Apol. i.31, § 73 A). To foretell Him and His work is the one purpose of prophecy. By it His whole life in its main outlines is described, His advent, His birth from the virgin, His coming to man's estate, His curing of the sick, His raising the dead, His being hated, and unknown, and crucified, His death, resurrection, and ascension, His divine sonship, His mission of the apostles, His success among the Gentiles (ib. i.31, § 73). (2) Justin attributes a revelation of the Word to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews; to them He is the angelos, the interpreter of the Father, not by prophetic anticipations, but by partial manifestation, of Himself. Every man in every race possesses a germ of the Word, by the power of which men knew what truth they did know, and did what good they did do; above all, the philosophers and lawgivers who, in their rational inquiries and speculations, were obeying the measure of the Word within them (kata logou meros . . . di heureseos kai theorias, ib. ii.10, § 48 C). It is Justin who promulgates the famous formula: |Osa para pasi kalos eiretai hemon ton Christianon esti (ib. ii.13, § 51). |We do not believe less, but more, than Empedocles and Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato,| he says: |we approve what they rightly said; but our doctrine is higher than theirs;| and so too with the Stoics, poets, and historians (cf. ib. i.18, § 65 C; ii.10, 13). This is the principle the Alexandrians are to develop. These ancient friends of Christ, for their obedience to the Word, were hated as Christians are hated, as impious and curious busy-bodies; chief of them was Socrates, who was martyred for Christ. With him are mentioned Heraclitus, Musonius the Stoic, etc. In the exercising of human reason to search out God such as these obeyed the power of the Word, the Reason of God (logo peirathentes ta pragmata theoresai kai elenxai . . . dia logou zeteseos theou tou agnostou epignosin; ib. ii.10, § 48; cf. i.5, § 55 E: logo alethei kai exetastikos). This general differs from the Christian revelation in the partial character of the logos spermatikos; each philosopher, etc., saw only a part of the Word. Hence the contradictions of the philosophic system, the inconsistencies of human law; some had one right part, some another. Christians possess the whole Word of God, in the person of Christ Jesus; they, therefore, hold the canon of truth which distinguishes all that was good and true of old, from the false and the confused with which it was mixed (ib. ii.9, 10, § 47). This distinction is radical; |since the germ and image of something, given to man according to the measure of his capacity, is quite distinct from that very thing itself which permits itself, by its own favour, to be so given and communicated | (ib. ii.113, § 51 C). This clear distinction exhibits the full reality of the personality attributed by Justin to the Word revealed in Christ; it is personality which distinguishes itself so decisively from the influence and energy which it exercises; it is it again which makes the distinction between a partial and a complete revelation to be so radical. The completeness of the Christian revelation lies in its being the revelation of Christ's Person (cf. ib. ii.10, § 48, hos esti Christos; ii.13, § 51). Hence, the Revelation of the Word concentrates itself in the Incarnation; for so only, and then only, is the Word Himself in His personal reality, as distinct from all his activities, and superior to all His influences, made manifest and actual to man. |our truth is more sublime than all human doctrine,| says Justin, |on account of the entirety with which the Divine Reason has appeared, for our sakes, as Christ, being manifested as body, and reason, and spirit| (ib. ii.10, § 48 B). It is because the Word of the absolute and ineffable God has |become a man for our sakes, sharing our passions, and curing our ills,| that we surpass all the philosophers whose wisdom we claim to be ours (ib. ii.13, § 50). Christians now can worship and love the Word. They possess in Him a doctor who will authoritatively determine the truth, separating it from the confusions introduced by the demons (ib. ii.13, § 51; ii.9, § 48 B). He has thus made the certain and secure revelation of the Father, which Socrates pronounced to be so difficult and perilous by the way of human reasoning; and He has made this revelation effective and universal, by being Himself no mere reasoner, but the very Power of the Ineffable God (dunamis esti tou Patros, ib. ii.10, § 49 A; cf. i.23, § 68 B). This Power of God avails to ensure security of truth to those even who cannot use reasoning effectively, to artisans and utterly unlearned people. The identification of the man Christ Jesus with the antecedent Word of God is entire and unhesitating. Nothing can exceed Justin's preciseness. |Christ Who was known in part by Socrates, for He was and is the Word which is in every man, and foretold things both by the prophets and in His own Person, when He took upon Him our nature and taught these things| (ib. ii.10, § 49 A). Here it is identically the same Person Who is known to Socrates, and inspires the prophets, and taught mankind in the flesh (cf. ib. i.23: |Jesus Christ, Who is the Word of God, His First-born, His Power, His only Son, was also made man|; cf. i.63, § 96 A.) In consequence of the pre-existence, the Incarnation could only be effected by a supernatural birth. Because the Christ existed personally in Himself before the ages and then endured to be born as a man, He could not be begotten by man, but must be born solely by the will of the Father Who originally begat Him. Such a birth would be unnecessary for a human Christ; those, therefore, who held that God's Christ was not pre-existent or divine, would not hold that He was born supernaturally of a virgin. So Justin claims that Trypho might accept the proofs that Jesus was Christ, even though he should fail to convince him of the eternal pre-existence and virgin-birth of Jesus (Dial.48, § 267 B); and here Justin confesses that some who are called Christians and acknowledge Jesus to men. He himself could never agree with them even if the main mass of Christians were to turn against him; but he speaks of these Ebionites with a mildness that is rather startling in view of the immense strength and definiteness of his own belief, with which his own church, as he tells us, fully agreed. Apparently he is justifying the possibility of the pis aller, which he proposes to Trypho. It is a novelty to Trypho, it seems, to hear of there being such Christians: he expects them to hold what Justin holds. Evidently, the common church faith in the pre-existence and divinity of Christ is so entire that it already has a theology which is anxious to use the agony in the garden and the bitter cry on the cross as proofs that Christ was actually a man Who could suffer pain (ib.103, § 331 D, etc.), as if it were the humanity that was more likely to be doubted than the divinity. This supernatural birth is justified by Isaiah's prophecy (which he accuses the Jews of having corrupted, by changing parthenos into neanis, and which the demons have caricatured in the myth of Perseus) (ib.68, § 294); by Psalm cx.: |From the womb I begat Thee| (ib.63, 286 D); and from many other texts in which Justin sees it foreshadowed that the blood of Christ would come not by human mixture, but solely by the will of God (Apol. i.32, § 74; Dial 76, § 301). His language on this goes so far that it seems sometimes hardly consistent with the perfect manhood of Christ. He is |like a son of man,| i.e. not born of human seed. His blood is called the |blood of the grape,| because it came not to Him from man, but direct from the will of the Father. He is the |stone cut without hands,| etc.

The purpose of the Incarnation is to save men from evil deeds and evil powers, and to teach assured truth (Apol. i.23, § 68 C; ep' allage kai epanagoge tou anthropeiou genous; ii.9 § 48, B). He brings to bear the full divine energy (he dunamis tou Patros) on a race diseased and deceived through the action of devils. So He is the medicine to cure (ib. ii.13, § 51 D), which He becomes by sharing our humanity (ton pathon ton hemeteron summetochos). He is therefore called the Saviour (ib. i.61, § 94 A), in Whom we receive remission of sins and regeneration. His mode of action is by (1) teaching, as the Word, which is no mere persuasive argument but is a Power penetrating deeper than the sun into the recesses of the soul (Dial.121, § 350 A), enabling us not only to hear and understand, but to be saved (Apol. ii.12, § 49). His truth is an absolute canon by which to sift the true from the false in human speculations, since He, the Entire Word, distinguishes with certainty, amid the confusion of the philosophies, that in them which is His own working. So completely and uniquely authoritative is He, that it is by His teaching alone that men rightly know and worship the one Father and God (ib. i.13). (2) He saves, secondly, by suffering on the cross: so sharing in all the reality of our flesh (cf. Dial.98, § 324 D, gegonen anthropos antileptikos pathon). He destroys death by death. He gains possession of men by the cross (cf. ib.134, [USD] 364 C, di haimatos kai musteriou tou staurou ktesamenos autous). By His blood He loosens the power of the devil (ib.94, § 322 A); He removes death (ib.105, § 332); by His blood He purifies those who believe (Apol i.32, § 74 A): hence, He, as crucified is the Priest, the Eternal High Priest (cf. Dial.116, 343 E). Man's power to keep blameless, and to drive out devils, follows the economy of His Passion (ib.31, § 247 D). Hence He is called boethos and lutrotes (ib.30, § 247 A), the hope of Christians is hung on the crucifixion of Christ (ib.96, § 323 C). By His stripes we are healed (ib.17, § 234 E), 336 D). So He is the Paschal Lamb, Who saves from death by the sprinkling of blood (ib.111, § 338 C). He saved, by submitting to that which all men deserved for sin, i.e. the curse pronounced on all who kept not the law; therefore He was crucified, because the curse lay on crucifixion; but He was no more under God's curse when He endured our curse than was the brazen serpent, which was ordered by God, though He had condemned all images. God saved of old by an image without violating the Second Commandment; He saves now, by a Crucified, those who are worthy of the curse, without, for that, laying His curse on the Crucified. It is the Jews, and not God, who now fulfil the text by|cursing Him that hung on the tree| (ib.96, 323). This cross and suffering the Father willed for man's sake, that on His Christ might fall the curse of all men: He willed it, knowing that He would raise Him again from this death, as Christ testified on the cross by His appeal to the Father. This coming of Christ to be despised, to suffer, to die, is justified by many appeals to prophecy, especially to Ps. xxii. (ib.98, § 325), to Jacob's blessing, Gen. xlix.8, 12, etc. It is the |hidden power of God which is exhibited in the crucified Christ | (ib.49, § 269 E). This power (ischus tou musteriou tou staurou, ib.91, § 318 B) began to manifest its hidden efficacy from the day of the resurrection; those who have faith in the cross, and exercise penitence, are, through the power of Christ, the great and eternal priest, stripped of the filthy garments of sin, and clothed with new robes, and made priests, through whom everywhere sacrifices are offered (ib.116, § 344). Christ Himself is raised from the grave, to be led up into heaven, by the Father, there to dwell until He shall strike down all the devils His enemies and the number of the elect righteous shall be fulfilled, when He will be shewn in glory on the throne of His manifested kingdom. Then will be the great judgment of devils and sinners which is delayed solely for the sake of gathering in all who may yet be willing to believe and repent (Apol. i.45, § 82 D; ii.7, § 45 B); till it comes, Christ sends down power on His Apostles, by which they, and all who will, consecrate them selves to the one God (ib. i.50, § 86 B; 49, § 85 B). This present efficacy of Christ is evident in the power of Christians over devils, who are bound and expelled by their adjuration (cf. Dial.76, § 302 A). This power, offered to all, manifests itself especially among the Gentiles, and is rejected by Jew and Samaritan, as many a prophecy had foretold (ib.91, § 319 A; cf.120 § 348, etc. to end of Dial.). It calls men by the road of faith into friendship and blessing, penitence, and compunction, and assures them of a kingdom to come, eternal and incorruptible (cf. ib.139, § 369 A). All on whom the power of the cross comes are gathered with one mind into one synagogue, one church, a church born of and called by His name, addressed by the Word in Scripture as His daughter, |Hearken, O daughter| (ib.63, § 287 B). This church is described, with St. Paul, as one body, hen kaleitai kai esti soma (ib.42, § 261 A).

The eternal kingdom comes with Christ's second advent, in glory, as judge. He will judge every man, up to Adam himself (ib.132, § 362 A); then shall sinners and devils weep, for to them He will allot a place in that eternal fire which will destroy this world; believers He will admit to the kingdom, recalling the dead to life and establishing them in an eternal and indissoluble kingdom, themselves incorruptible, immortal, painless (ib.117, § 345, B). This is the Melchisedec, King of Salem, eternal Priest of the Most High, Who will remake a new heaven and a new earth, into which holy land His circumcised shall enter (ib.113, § 341 A). This kingdom is generally spoken of as in heaven, as not earthly (cf. Apol. i.11, § 59 A, etc.); it is a home with God, for the sake of which Christians easily despise all earthly delights and lusts and the fear of death. In one famous passage in the Dialogue (80, § 306 B; cf.113, § 341 A) he accepts the Jewish belief of a millennium in a restored and beautified Jerusalem; he claims to have dealt already with this point, though no such explanation is in the Dialogue; many share this belief with him, he says, yet many pious and orthodox Christians reject it; only those who are, according to Justin, horthognomones kata panta Christianoi, hold this faith with him, based on Is. lxv.17 and on the Revelation of |one of themselves, by name John, an apostle of Christ,| who speaks of a first resurrection and then a second eternal resurrection and judgment of all men. Evidently there are no words of our Lord's to support this belief; it is a pious opinion, resting on the literal reading of the Apocalypse, held by the most strict believers, but not necessary to a pure and true faith (kathara kai eusebes gnome). Far different are those who deny the future resurrection of the body altogether and believe in an immediate entrance of the souls of Christians into heaven: |let Trypho beware of deeming such to be Christians at all.| The resurrection of the body is a cardinal point of Justin's creed (cf. Apol. i.18 ff.); essential to the reality of future punishment, and to the fullness of a Christian's security against all loss in death, and justified by an appeal to the wonder of our first creation and to Christ's miracles (Dial.69, § 296 A).

When this Advent will be, we know not, though it maybe soon. It will be preceded by the appearance of the Man of Iniquity.

On the action of the Third Person, Justin is not so definite; he is continually speaking of Him, but His person and office are not always distinguished with precision from those of the Second Person. He is there, in Justin's creed, a recognized element in it, constantly occurring; but apparently Justin's metaphysic had not yet had time or occasion to dwell on this point with anxiety or exactness. The most definite mention of Him is in the typical formula for the object of Christian worship and sacramental service; here He is distinctly allied to the First and Second Persons as the alone Third, Who shares with Them the adoration of Christians and the ministration of grace (cf. Apol. i.13, § 60 E, Pneuma prophetikon en trite taxei timomen, where he is explaining what it is that Christians worship); again (ib. i.60, § 93 B), he claims for the Spirit the truth of that to triton which Plato was supposed to have suggested. Here, as in the former case, the triton is parallel to he deutera chora, the place of the Son, and must, therefore, be understood in something of the same significance as that; and that |second place| signified, we know, a difference in number, in fact, in personality, not a mere logical distinction; yet it included such a unity of substance and will that the terminology of the Godhead could be directly applied to it, with the exception of those symbols of absolute supremacy, i.e. the titles, |Father,| |Creator,| etc. As the Holy Spirit is directly included within the lines of the object worshipped, so is He directly implicated in the divine action upon men: thus the baptismal and sacrificial formula unite His name with that of the Father and the Son (ib. i.61, § 94 A; 65, § 97 D; 67, § 98 C). He, with the Son, is the medium by which praise and thanksgiving are offered to the Father; His is the third name in the might of which the Christian receives regeneration. One curious passage gives Him a strange place: Justin refutes (ib. i.6, § 56 C) the charge of atheism by claiming that Christians honour and adore (sebometha kai proskunoumen) |both God the Father, and the Son Who came from Him, and the host of good angels that follow Him, and are made like to Him, and the Prophetic Spirit also.| Here the angels are brought in front of the Spirit, through the need, probably, of expressing their unity with Christ by virtue of which they become the objects of Christian reverence (exomoioumenon). Several attempts have been made to avoid this sudden introduction of the angels, by various interpreters (cf. Otto's note in loc. ed. vol. i.1, 21); but it is hardly possible to read the passage otherwise than as it stands. It must be explained by its position; Justin is quite precise and clear in other passages, where the position attributed to the Holy Spirit is definitely marked, and this sentence, therefore, must be interpreted in accordance with them, not they be confused by it. The angels are best introduced in close company with that Divine Person to Whom they are peculiarly attached, and from Whom especially they derive their title to sanctity (cf. Dial.31, § 247 E; Apol. i.52, §§ 87-88; Dial.61, § 284 B), our Lord being Himself ho angelos, and being therefore named archistrategos the captain of the angelic host. Only through Him can they be reverenced; while the Holy Spirit receives worship by right of Himself. Justin, by throwing in at the end sebometha with proskunoumen, covers all the varieties of adoration that his inclusion of angels may have made requisite; and he adds logo kai aletheia timontes, as if to suggest there were carefully guarded lines of distinction in the Christian's worship. Elsewhere he shews himself perfectly conscious of the impossibility of paying absolute worship to any but God alone (Apol. i.16, § 63); in order to justify the adoration of Christ, he knows clearly that he must shew Him to be higher than all angels (Dial.56, § 276). The whole argument with the Jew exhibits the precision of Justin's distinction between God and His angelic ministers; but, on the other hand, his language in this unique passage evidences the reverential service that could be offered, according to Christian use, to those who had been fashioned into the likeness of Christ.

The Holy Spirit is concerned with creation (ib. i.60, § 93 B), in His distinct personal fullness, as ho tritos with a third station peculiar to Himself (trite chora) in the Godhead. His main office is with inspiration; He is to Pneuma to prophetikon; this is His cardinal name. He speaks as Himself to man, using men as His organ (dia Mouseos proemenuse, ib. i.60, § 93 B); here, since the words follow the statement of the place of the Holy Spirit in the Triad, they must definitely intend Him, in His distinction from the Word, to be the spring of inspiration; so, too, in the formula of baptism, it is the name of prophetikos which marks His distinction from the Word; and we must, therefore, apply to Him, in His separate right and existence, the constantly recurring use of this name (cf. ib. i.38, § 77 C; 47, § 84 A, etc., etc.), on all which occasions He is spoken of as the direct author and speaker of prophecy, and prophecy is spoken of as peculiarly the note of God (ib. i.30, § 72 B, etc.). This Spirit is one throughout; It spoke once in Elias, and afterwards in the Baptist (Dial.49, § 268). Yet Justin sometimes attributes to the Word this action of inspiration which gives to the Spirit His name (cf. Apol. i.36, § 76 D); the prophets speak through the Word which moves them (so again ib. i.33, § 75 D, theophorountai logo theio; cf. Dial.61, § 284 C; 62, § 285; 63, § 236 D). In both cases it is the effective agency by which the prophets are stirred to speak which is attributed to the Word; and Justin attributes this on grounds which he expects the heathen emperors to acknowledge, it is language they must understand (Apol. i.33). The action of God on man is so intimately bound up with the Word, in Justin, that it is wonderful how much inspiration he attributes to the Spirit, rather than how little.

Justin holds very decisively the belief (1) in good angels, attached intimately to our Lord (cf. former quotations), messengers of God in O. and N. T., fed in heaven on some manna (Dial.57, § 279 C), accompanying Christ in His glory on the last day; and (2) more particularly in bad angels, to whom the earth and man had been committed by God (Apol. ii.5, § 44 A), but who overstepped their limits in wicked intercourse with women, who, from them, bore sons, the devils; they reduced the human race to servitude, by deceitful magic, and by terror, and by instituting sacrifices, etc., to themselves, for which they lusted now that they had known the passion of fleshly desires: they sowed the seeds of war, adultery, crime. Chief among them is the Serpent, the tempter of Adam and Eve, the Devil, Satanas, a name ascribed to him by our Lord Himself at His temptation, signifying Apostate and Serpent (ib. i.28, § 71 B; Dial, 103, § 331 B).

The problem of the human soul occupies the chief place in the account of Justin's conversion; the philosophers were felt to be uncertain and insecure in their conception of it, especially as regards its immortality, its consequent transmigration, and its relation to the divine substance. Justin holds that the soul is no particle of the absolute mind; has no life in itself; is created; is not life, but partaker of life, so that it could perish; but receives immortality by the will of God, as is proved by a mass of practical testimony, by the word of Revelation, and by its consonance with the needs of justice; this immortality includes as its essential requisite the resurrection of the body, without which justice could not fulfil itself; it will be given both to the just and to the unjust (cf. Dial.4, 5, 6; Apol. i.21, § 67 D; 18, 19, § 65), though it is only rightly |immortality| for the just; for the others, eternal fire.

Man, according to Justin, has been imprisoned in sin since the fall of Adam, the first man, deceived of the devil, who fell greatly by deceiving Eve; hence |ye shall die| (Dial.124, § 353 D, homoios to Adam kai te Eua exomoioumenoi, thanaton heautois hergazontai), though originally made theo homoios apatheis kai athanatous (cf. ib.88, § 316 A). Man, as the angels, was made incorruptible, if he kept God's laws. This Biblical view falls in with his account of the whole human race, as sinning through the deceit of evil angels who made them think their own bad passions possible in gods. This evil state, thus brought on, is spoken of as a tyranny from which man had to be delivered by another (cf. ib.116, § 344 A; Apol. ii.6, § 45 A; Christ comes epi katalusei ton daimonon. The whole race is under the curse; for, if the Jews were, by the laws of Moses, much more were the Gentiles with their horrible idolatry (Dial.95, § 322 D). Only by Christ is the curse removed; He, our Israel, wrestles for us with the devil (ib.125, § 354 D). Only by His grace are the devils made subject. But Justin combines with this a great anxiety to keep man's free-will intact; he is continually explaining himself on this point. Man is never deserted of God; he possesses, after the fall, the germinal Logos, by which he discerns between good and evil, between true and false (cf. ib.93, § 320 D; Apol. ii.10).

The gift of Christ to man is primarily remission of sins (cf. Dial.116, § 344, etc.), effected through penitence on man's part, excited by his call into true faith in the Creator; by Christ's power, sin is stripped off and remitted; we are made regenerate (Apol. i.61, § 94 D. This regeneration accomplished and the truth being now known and confessed, we become bound, and fit, to accomplish a good life, to keep the commandments, to attain eternal life (ib. i.65, § 97 C). We are clothed with garments prepared of Christ (Dial.116, § 344); we are to imitate God's own virtues, to exhibit ourselves worthy of His counsel by works (Apol. i.10, § 58 B). The entire change of character is beautifully given in Apol. i.14, § 61, 15, etc.

The most effective guard of this pure living is belief in the resurrection of the body; for this hope consecrates the entire man to the holiness of the eternal kingdom and renders real the sense of future punishment; we shall feel torture, hereafter, in our bodies; without this, future pain would be unreal and meaningless (ib. i.18, § 65). God will raise and endue with incorruptibility the dead bodies, now dissolved and scattered like seeds over the earth (ib. i.19).

This human race will endure until the number of those willing to become Christians is complete. It is because God acts by the free choice of man that He does not destroy evil by force, but offers men the chance of escape, and gives them time to use the chance (Dial.102, § 329 A). The punishment that awaits sinners, when the end comes, will be by fire and for ever. On this Justin is very pronounced (cf. Apol. i.8, § 57 B: |an eternal punishment| (aionion kolasin), he says, |and not a mere period of a thousand years,| apaustos kolazesthai (Dial.45, § 264 B); the kingdom is aionios kai alutos, the kolasis puros is aionios too (Dial.117, § 345). He uses the language freely and frankly, unhampered, apparently, by his theory of the soul, which makes its immortality dependent on the Will of God, Who wills it in the shape of Holiness (cf. Iren. bk. iii.36; cf. Apol. i.21, § 67). He justifies the existence of reward and punishment by the forcible argument, that, without them, you are compelled to believe God indifferent to good and evil, or else good and evil to have no real actuality; both which beliefs are impious. The judgment is the witness of God's regard to the reality of the distinction (cf. Apol. ii.9, § 47 E; i.28, § 71 C).

The church is that society of Christians in which the power of the regeneration is faithfully manifested and the pure knowledge revealed in Christ loyally held; so Justin is anxious to explain that not all so-called Christians are real Christians, any more than all so-called philosophies mean the same thing (ib. i.7, § 56 D). Many, professing to confess Christ, hold impious and immoral doctrine, with whom the |disciples of the true and pure doctrine| do not communicate; they are marked as heretical by assuming the names of their founders, e.g. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides (Dial 35, § 253 D.

The true Christians hold |the pure teaching of Jesus Christ|; possess |a pure and pious doctrine| based on Scripture, and the words of Christ, not on human doctrine (ib.48, § 269 D); prove them true by holiness (cf. Apol. i.26, § 70 B); heretics may be capable of any wickedness for all Justin knows. He himself has written a work against all the heresies (ib. i.26, § 70 C). The heresies confirm true believers in the faith, since Christ foretold them (cf. Dial.82, § 308 B; 35, § 253 C), though they lead many away.

True believers are admitted to the body by the rite of baptism, on their acceptance of Christian verity and their promise to live accordingly (Apol. i.61, § 93 A). This baptism is the true circumcision of the Spirit (Dial.43, § 261 D); works with the cross to expiate our sins (ib.86, § 314 A); is appointed by Christ Himself for the remission of sins; and is our regeneration, by which we are born again out of a state of sin into Light and Holiness; so called |Illumination;| photismos (Apol. i.61, 74). It presupposes penitence and a confession of faith (ib. i.61, 65). Baptism admits to the brotherhood, the assembly, where common prayers are made (ib. i.65, § 97 C), the kiss of peace given, and the Eucharist offered by the leader of the brethren, o proestos; who takes the bread and water and wine brought him, and sends up praise and glory to the Father, in the Name of the Son and the Holy Spirit; at the end of his thanksgiving the people give their consent by saying, |Amen|; after this thanksgiving, eucharistia, the deacons administer the elements, with which thanks have been offered (tou
eucharistethentos artou), to each one present and carry some to the absent. This food is itself called the Eucharist; no one may eat of it who does not believe the truth taught and has not been washed by baptism; for it is not ordinary bread or wine, koinon arton, but |in the very manner that Jesus Christ becoming incarnate by the word of God, had, for our salvation, both flesh and blood, so have we been taught that the food, which has been made a thanksgiving by the word of prayer which He gave us, by which food our own flesh and blood are; through a process of transformation, nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that same incarnate Jesus.| He proceeds to quote, from the books of the apostles, the account of the institution of the Last Supper, and compares it with the initiatory offerings in the mysteries of Mithra (ib. i.65-66, § 97). In this passage the Incarnation is spoken of, as elsewhere, as the work of the Word Himself; though He is Himself the Incarnate One (cf. ib. i.32, 74 B, ho logos hos sarkopoietheis anthropos gegomen). The principle of the Eucharist is found in the principle of the Incarnation (though the analogy is hardly to be pressed into details); it is the flesh and blood of Christ, taken for our salvation, that are identified with the food; which food is itself so intimately allied with our flesh and blood that it still nourishes our actual bodies kata metabolen, though it is the flesh and blood of Jesus, after the word of prayer, di euches logou (by some rendered, |prayer of His word,| cf. Otto's notes, p.181 of 3rd ed.), which He Himself instituted, i.e. the words ordained by Christ, given by Justin as |Do this in remembrance of Me: this is My body: this is My blood.| In the Dialogue, 117, § 345 A Justin speaks again of the |dry and liquid food| in which memorial is made by Christians, according to a received institution, of the suffering of the Son of God, to pathos ho peponthe. This memorial is there identified, with those prayers and thanksgivings, offered by holy people, which alone are the sacrifices perfect and well-pleasing to God, in contrast with the Jewish sacrifices, and in fulfilment of Mal. i.10. These sacrifices (thusiai) occur at the Eucharist of the bread and of the cup; the spiritual sacrifice of praise is then and there alone accomplished, by God's injunction. Isa. xxxiii.13 is fulfilled in the bread which our Christ ordered us (paredoken) to offer (poiein) for a memorial of His having taken to Himself a body, and so become passible (pathetos) (Dial.70, § 296 E).

Justin mentions, beside the Eucharist which followed the baptism, that the Christians met every Sunday (he tou heliou hemera), the day on which God began creation and raised Christ (Apol. i.67, § 97). All came in who could, from country and town, to one place; the memorials of the apostles or the books of the prophets were read publicly; then, the leader preached and admonished; after which all rose together and prayed; then the Eucharist is administered as before described. At such times, offertories were made of voluntary gifts, laid in the hands of the leader, who distributed them to the sick, widows, etc. |Ever,| says Justin, |do we remind ourselves of this rite| which followed our baptism; and |ever we live together; we who are rich give to the poor; and for everything that we have we bless the Creator of all through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit| (ib. i.67); sendIing up to Him solemn prayers (pompas) and hymns, not deeming Him to be in need of blood and libations and sweet smells (ib. i.13, § 60 C). Sunday, then, was observed as a peculiar day (cf. Dial.24, 241 B); this is in contrast with sabbatizein, and |regarding the stars,| which mean, distinctly, keeping the Jewish feasts; this the main body of Christians repudiated, so that it was by most treated as a criminal heresy to keep the sabbath, and they refused to hold communion with those Christians who still held to these Jewish customs. This severity Justin condemns; but his whole argument with Trypho accepts thoroughly the abolition of the Fourth Commandment. The sabbath symbolizes Moses, and Christians hope not in Moses but in Christ; the Christian does not think himself pious for keeping one day idle, but for keeping a continual sabbath. The sabbath was given for the hardness of the Jews' hearts (cf. ib.10, § 227 B, etc.; 19, § 237 C; 21, § 238),

Justin's conception of the Law is very strong and decided. Definite as he is against Marcion, in his belief in the revelation of the true God made in O.T., he yet takes an extreme view of the partial, local and temporal character of the law. He bases himself, mainly, on his principle of the complete universality of God: God is everlasting, throughout all time, over all people; He is judge of all the earth; His justice must be alike everywhere. Hence He cannot shut up His relations to man within the limits of a law addressed to a single people, and for a limited period of time (Dial.23, § 240 E; 93, 320 C). Facts prove this: for God was well-pleased with Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisedec, though they were uncircumcised and kept no sabbaths (cf. ib.19, § 236 C). Again, if virtue lay in the mere act of circumcision, women would be in a worse case than men (ib.23, § 241 C). It would be against God's nature to value such rites, and limitations, and new sacrifices, for their own sake, as if the good lay in them. Did the Law, then, not come from Him? Yes; but God in it accommodated Himself to the Jews; it was for you Jews alone that it was necessary; because you forgot Him, He had to decree your sabbaths; because you fell away to idols, He had to demand of you sacrifices (ib.19, § 236 E). He ordered you a temple, lest you should worship images. All was done to distinguish the Jewish race from the heathen; and this, not on account of the race's virtue, so much as for its proneness to evil. To justify this, Justin appeals to the |everlasting voice of prophecy|; he quotes the many words of the prophets in which sabbaths and sacrifices are declared unpleasing and unavailing. |I am not inventing all this,| he says, but |this is what David sang, Isaiah preached, Zechariah proclaimed, Moses wrote| (ib.29). Where the prophets insist on the laws, it was because of the people's sin (ib.27, § 244 B). But Justin has, still, to account for the Law being, in a relative sense, worthy of God; and this He does by
distinguishing two elements in it, one eternal, the other temporal; the two stand to each other chiefly as sign and reality; so Justin discovers in the temporal provisions of the Law allegories of eternal truths. This is what was meant when Moses gave minute rules about meats and herbs and drinks; it was to symbolize the moral laws (cf. ib.20, § 237 C), but the Jewish people took it literally. They supposed, e.g., some herbs to be evil, some good; while, in truth, God meant all to be good, if it was profitable to men. The circumcision under Joshua was allegorical (cf. ib. iii. § 332), So, again, meat was a symbol of Christ; so, too, the Passover Lamb, and the scape-goats (ib.40, 41, § 259 A). But if the Law was allegorical, symbolic, it necessarily ceased when the reality came. So it ended with Christ Who has enabled us to sever the eternal from the temporal elements: He is the test and canon of what was real in the Law (ib.67, § 292 C).

If Christ took away sin, He took away the reason for the Law; He gave us the circumcision of the heart, which made the carnal circumcision needless (cf. baptisthete ten psuchen apo orges kai idou, to soma katharon esti : ib.14, 231 D). Justin does not consider that such a principle as this negatives the necessity of an outward baptism, or of an outward Sunday; fox both these he holds. Prophecy speaks of a new covenant to be made in a Christ; and this for Jew as well as for Gentile, for both are to be saved in the same Christ (ib.64, § 287 B). Why, then, did Christ keep the Law? Out of the economy of God; He accepted the Law as He accepted the Cross, and the becoming-man: it was in order to carry out the Father's will; but He was not justified by keeping the Law; otherwise He could not be the Saviour of all men (ib.67, § 292 A) nor have introduced a new covenant. The admission of the eternal significance of Christ necessarily carries us back behind the Law, to the conditions under which all men had always lived (ib.23, § 241 B).

The failure of the Jews to believe in the Christ is no argument for their being right; for it is foretold all along that the Gentiles are the children of prophecy, the true Israel, the perfect proselytes; it is of them that all the good promises are spoken. The whole of the end of the Dialogue is devoted to shewing this.

We realize in Justin the complete Gentilism of the Christianity of A.D.140. He regards the Law rather as an evidence of peculiar evil, than of peculiar good, in the Jews; so he even says in scorn that circumcision only serves to mark them out for condemnation, as the accursed who are forbidden to enter Jerusalem; it enables the Romans to exclude them from the Holy Land.

But if Justin is hard upon the Law, he is very different towards Prophecy. On Prophecy, on Scripture, he relies absolutely; he asks to be believed, only so far as he can prove his truth by Scripture. It is the word of God, given by God through the Word, or chiefly through the Spirit. This is reiterated continually. The whole O.T. is as a great drama, with various actors, but of which there is a single author, the Spirit of God (Apol. i.36, § 76 D). It is a unity; so that Justin does not believe that any one part can contradict any Other; rather he would feel bound to confess his own ignorance, where such seemed the case (Dial.65, § 289 C). His definition is: |Certain men existed among the Jews, God's prophets, through whom the prophetic spirit foretold things before they occurred| (Apol. i.31, § 72 B). Moses he calls the first; after Moses he speaks of an |eternal prophecy going forth| (ib. i.31; Dial.30, § 247 A). They foretold Christ, His coming, His birth from a virgin, His man's estate, His curing disease and raising the dead, His being hated and despised and fixed to a cross, His death, resurrection, and ascension, His being, and being called, the Son of God, His sending out apostles, His success among the Gentiles (Apol. i.31, § 73 A).

Justin offers a very storehouse of Christian interpretations of Scripture, such as cannot be classified briefly; the strongest lines lie: --

(1) In the exhibition of the divine plurality, through which Justin can, while retaining the absolute purity and separateness of God the Father such as the Jewish monotheism made imperative, yet justify and correlate all the manifold manifestations of Himself by God under local and temporal qualifications, all receiving their true and complete elucidation in the Incarnation. He Whose nature it is to be the expression and exhibition of the Father's will, was at the tent door with Abraham, in the dream with Jacob, in the burning bush with Moses, at the camp side with Joshua, above the cherubim with Isaiah, and now is made man of Mary (cf. Dial.75, § 301 A).

(2) Justin ably gathers into one the many-sided characteristics of the Messianic prophecy -- the many human, mingled with the many divine, names attributed to the Christ: He is man -- yet to be adored; He is suffering, yet triumphant; He saves His people, He is rejected by His people. Justin, in the paradox of the Cross, has a key to the endless paradox of prophecy. All the shifting double-sided revelations of Godhead and manhood, of triumph and suffering, meet in a crucified king. He can give a unity of solution to a Christ Who is called |Angel of great Counsel| and |Man| by Ezekiel, |As a Son of man| by Daniel, |Servant| or |Child| by Isaiah, |Christ| and |God| and |Adorable| by David, |Christ| and |the Stone| by many, |Wisdom| by Solomon, |Joseph, Judah, and the Star| by Moses, |the Morning Star| by Zechariah, |Suffering,| and |Jacob,| and |Israel| by Isaiah, and |Rod,| and |Flower,| and |Corner-stone| |cut without hands,| and |Son of God,| Who is |despised and rejected,| yet also is proclaimed |King of Kings, King of Hosts, King of Glory,| and is |Set on the right hand of God,| |Born of a virgin,| yet |Existent before all the world,| |the power of God, the glory of God,| |the Word,| |the Lord,| |the Captain of the Hosts,| |King,| |Priest,| yet also |Man,| |the Stone,| |the Child,| |the Sufferer| (ib.126, § 355 B; 61, § 284 A; 34, § 251 D). In giving force to this last characteristic of the Christ, i.e. ho pathetos, at the same time that he gave reality to the highest title, ho theos proskunetos, Justin shews his power over the Jew, who can only hover aimlessly between the two, unable to deal with or accept either the lowest or the highest. Justin declares that no one ever understood the prophecy of the sufferings, until Christ opened it to His apostles.

(3) He is powerful in his deduction from prophecy of the failure, unbelief, and ruin of the Jewish race -- as the favoured people; and in the change of the manifestation of God from them to the Gentiles. Here he had much to use which was only a stumbling-block to strict Jewish reliance on blood and privilege.

(4) He is successful in exhibiting the newness of Christ's covenant, the New Law, the New Heart; under this conception the continual discontent of God with the old sacrifices and sabbaths gains intensity of meaning; the calls to wash and be clean, and put away sins, are vivified; the prophetic types of a new and wider dispensation are brought into daylight. Cf. the whole latter part of the Dialogue.

Where Justin is weakest is, naturally, in knowledge. He is ignorant of the original tongue and very arbitrary in his interpretation of details; he uses Christ as the accepted key to the whole complicated history, in a way that to a believer is often full of devotional suggestiveness, but to an unbeliever has no argumentative force. Instances may be found in such chaps. as 77, 78 of the Dialogue, or c.81, etc. He often takes the wrong sense of a passage. He interprets the passages condemnatory of the Jewish sacrifices, etc., in a way that wins them a new meaning from Christ, but is certainly not their intended meaning. He can only meet Trypho's sharp criticism on this point by appealing to his own presumption that God's approval of the Law can only have been an accommodation to the people's sins (Dial.27, § 244 B).

Prophecy is to Justin the main form of Christian evidences; and this for Gentile as much as for Jew. It is to prophecy he turns to prove that the Christian story of the Incarnation is not a poetic tale, without foundation; Greek mythology offers no testimony to its own reality (Apol. i.54, § 89 A). Christ's miracles were no magic or conjuring because they were foretold (ib. i.30, 31, § 72 A). Justin is shy of arguing from miracles: there had been too much false wonder-working for him to appeal to them. The miracles of the old Prophets he speaks of as worthy to win them credit, since they were coincident with a lofty desire to reveal God and with prophecy of Christ (Dial.7, § 225 A). Christ's miracles are to be believed on the ground of prophecy (Apol. i.30). Miracles are, to him, proofs, when they have been testified to, but cannot stand alone as evidence.

The other evidence to which Justin appeals is the (1) purity of Christian precepts (Apol. i.14, § 61); (2) their constancy under torture (ib. ii.12, § 50 A; Dial.110, § 337 B); (3) the consecrated lives of uncorrupt virginity, the conversion of penitents to holiness (Apol. i.15, 62 B, C; cf. ib. i.29, § 71 E); (4) the exorcising of demons (ib. ii.6, § 45 B); (5) the existence of prophetical gifts in the church (cf. Dial.82, § 308 B), as well as of gifts of spiritual power (ib.35, § 254 B), miracle, and healing (ib.39, § 258 A).

We may briefly ask what knowledge Justin shows of (1) Jewish, and (2) Gentile learning.

(1) He refers frequently to Jewish modes of interpreting texts and seems used to dealing with them (cf. ib.50, § 269 D); but perhaps he knows them rather in their polemic against Christians than in their own inner teaching. He charges them with escaping from texts against them by throwing doubts on the LXX, while all the Messianic texts that can be accommodated to human affairs they attach to whom they choose, but not to Christ (ib.63, § 294 B). Thus they attribute the fulfilment of the triumphs spoken of in the Psalms to Solomon, in Isaiah to Hezekiah (ib.64, § 287 A; 77, § 302 B). Justin does not seem to know of any Jewish theorizing on the problem of the Logos. The Jews expect a purely human Christ (ib.49, § 268 A), to be heralded by Elias in person, and anointed by him; till which time the Christ is to be in obscurity; He will not even know Himself (ib.110, § 336 C). The texts that speak of Christ as passible, yet as God and adorable, they are compelled, Justin says, to attribute to Christ, but they refuse to allow this Jesus to be the Christ, though they have to confess that the Christ will suffer and be worshipped. The divinity of Christ is, according to this, forced upon the Jews' belief by Christian logic, but they do not know what to make of it, and are in straits.

(2) As to Gentile philosophy, Justin's general knowledge was evidently large; but it is a question how far he held to any system accurately or scientifically; he sits pretty loosely to them all. He places Plato highest, and delights in his doctrine of Eternal Ideas, but no definite Platonic formulae are used; the Ideas do not appear; the doctrine of the Word has general relations to Platonism, but that is all; it is itself utterly unlike any teaching in Plato; it belongs to the process of thought which has its roots in O.T., and works through Philo up into Christianity. He gives us nothing of Plato's except the account of the |X| as the law of creation, in the Timaeus, which Justin supposes him to have taken from the account of the brazen serpent; and the statement of the triad character of things, which is taken from an epistle attributed till lately to Plato. He declares Plato's account of creation from formless matter to have been taken from Genesis; but he only means this in the most general way, for he seems to fancy that Plato's formula is consistent with Moses' statement that this formless matter had itself been made by God (cf. Apol. i.59, § 92 D). It is obvious that Justin's relation to Platonism is quite external; he holds the Christian formulae, and whenever he detects a likeness to them in Plato, he delights in bringing it out, without regard to context or system; these likenesses are entirely arbitrary and superficial, and can never be pressed. Justin's canon of truth is absolutely in Scripture; from that standpoint his kindly love for Plato pleases itself in exhibiting in him fragmentary resemblance to the truth; but if these fragments of truth are rooted in error, so much the worse for Plato; Justin has no idea of following them down. There is something to be said for his connexion with Stoicism; he approved their morals, and found them right, to some extent, as to the ultimate end of Nature; but objects strongly to their physical doctrines, their belief in fate, their physico-Pantheistic conception of God, by which they must either identify God with evil and change, or else deny the reality of evil (ib. ii.7, 8); he considers their physics inconsistent with their ethics. Musonius and Heraclitus he honourably distinguishes; of the Epicureans he speaks scornfully (ib. ii.15, § 52 B).

One problem remains to be considered, i.e. the relation of Justin to our four Gospels. The amount and frequency of his references to our Lord's life and words, in the generation immediately preceding the day in which the present Gospels emerge, secure and alone, into the full daylight of history, make him of salient importance in determining their character; and the state of the present controversy, which has detected the subtle transition, through which the gospel story passed, from the conditions of a living, oral tradition to those of formal written exemplars, increases the importance of Justin, as he begins the definite references to written records, of a fixed character, capable of being used for devotional purposes. Are these records identical in substance and in form with our Gospels?

(1) The substantial characteristics of our Lord's life, down even to minute details, are, obviously, the same for Justin as for us. We can compose, from his quotations, a full summary of the whole gospel life, from the angel's message to the Virgin until the ascension, entering into many particulars, illustrating prophecies, supplying the very words of our Lord, in many instances relating all the circumstances; and, as a whole, it is perfectly clear that the lines which limit and determine in detail our Gospel did so, too, to his. The same body of facts is selected; the same character, the same limits preserved, the same characteristics brought forward; the same motives, the same interests are concerned; the same prophetic aspects dwelt upon. This is noticeable, when we remember how very special and remarkable a choice must have been originally exercised upon our Lord's life, to select and retain the peculiar fragments, no more and no less, which are collected and sorted by our Synoptists.

Justin makes some additions or changes in detail to this main story; so few that they can be mentioned and their character seen. He had a genealogy which, whether ours or not, he attributed to Mary, not to Joseph; Cyrenius he calls the first procurator of Judaea; our Lord's birthplace is a cave; the Magi come from Arabia; all the children in Bethlehem are killed; our Lord is not |comely of aspect|; He made ploughs and yokes, emblems of righteousness; the Baptist sat by Jordan; a fire shone in Jordan at our Lord's baptism, and the words from heaven complete the text of the second Psalm; the Jews ascribed our Lord's miracles to magic; John ceased his mission at our Lord's public appearance. The Lord said, |There shall be schisms and heresies|; and |In whatsoever I find you, in that will I judge you.| Of these several are, probably, confusions or amplifications of Justin's own; some represent additions found in various texts of our present Gospels, and were, probably, floating, popular, traditional interpretations of various passages. The only remaining points definitely distinct are, the home of the Magi, the cave of the Nativity, the posture of the Baptist, the two sayings of our Lord. Does Justin, then, take these from tradition or from any uncanonical gospel? We must hypothesize the gospel that he used, if it is not ours; for we have no relic of it in our hands, and here the remark seems convincing (Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p.202) that this gospel, if it existed, belongs not to an earlier but to a later stage of the story than our canonical works.

That they were books that he used he tells us frequently; it is all |written|; the books are called by a name peculiar to Justin, apomnemoneumata ton Apostolon; they are records of our Lord's sayings and doings, written either by apostles or their followers (Apol. i.66, § 98 B; Dial.103, § 333 D). These books constitute to euangelia, (ib.10, § 227 E); a quotation is referred to this euangelion (ib.100, § 326 C); the apomnemoneumata are themselves called euangelia, he tells us, if the text is right (Apol. i.66). All this points obviously to the existence of various records, |written either by apostles or by their followers,| constituting altogether a single story, to euangelion. So far our Gospels exactly correspond. More than this, it is almost incredible that he should not have known Matthew, at least; besides the general mass of reference, which exhibits remarkable resemblance to this Gospel, he has marked notices that distinguish Matthew from the other forms of the evangelical tradition: the visit of the Magi, the descent into Egypt, Joseph's suspicions of Mary, texts, elsewhere unparalleled, from the Sermon on the Mount, the application of Is. xlii.1-4 to the colt with the ass; above all, the comment of the disciples upon the identification of the Baptist with Elias (Dial.49, § 269 A; Matt. xviii.11-13), the expressions enochos eis (Matt. v.22), angareusei (v.41), etc., etc. The resemblance to Luke in places where we can distinguish St. Luke's peculiar work from the general tradition are in a few cases almost impossible to resist, such as the quotation of xviii.27 (Apol. i.20, § 66); the use of the unique expression isangeloi, xx.35-36; and the most remarkable expressions at the annunciation, episkiazein dunamis hupsistou, etc., which are directly Lucan. Cf., also, the last word on the cross. The only statement entirely peculiar to Mark is the naming of the sons of Zebedee. Thus not only is the whole body of quotation accounted for with a few rare exceptions, from our Gospels, but in some cases where SS. Matthew and Luke affect by their individuality the common original tradition Justin reproduces them.

The inexactness of quotation is the one opposing element. Justin is inexact, it is true, in his O.T. quotations, but he is more than three times as inaccurate in his N.T. ones. It is intensely difficult to know how much to discount for free combination which Justin uses extensively, how much for lack of memory, how much for mere paraphrase; or to determine, after such discounting, how much evidence remains to shew Justin's use of any other gospel besides our own. But if Justin used some form of the gospel not now in the canon, it was either a text used by the side of Matthew and Luke, and not differing from them in any degree more than they differ from each other; and if so, it would multiply the evidence for the authenticity of the narrative embodied in our canon; or else it was a text compounding and combining with some freedom the other two; and if so, it supposes these canonical gospels to be already the formal authorities. The supposition that Justin used a perfectly distinct form of the gospel story from any we now possess is met by the invincible difficulty that, though ex hypothesi of sufficient importance and acceptance to be used in the public offices of the metropolitan church as late as the boyhood of St. Irenaeus, it has, nevertheless, totally disappeared.

As to John, the main argument against its use is that from silence. Justin is full of doctrine on the subject of the Word, on the pre-existence and divine authority of Christ, yet no words from the Johannine discourses appear in his work. This argument has necessarily great weight, yet any single distinct reference to John must outweigh such a negative. Is there any such reference?

In Dial.88 Justin attributes to the Baptist himself the words of the prophet, phone boontos. This attribution is one of those remarkable distinctions peculiar to St. John's Gospel. We know of no other ground for it. Twice (in Apol. i.22, § 68 B, and Dial.69, § 296 A) he speaks of our Lord healing people infirm ek genetes: the only recorded instance of this is the blind man in Jn. ix.20, ek genetes. In Apol. i.61, Justin, it can hardly be doubted, is paraphrasing Jn iii.3-5. He is referring to a definite statement of our Lord; and the statement -- a most marked and peculiar one -- occurs here only. Justin refers to it in a way that makes it hardly possible to suppose him unacquainted with the continuation in John. In its context in the Apology the reference to the physical impossibility of a literal new birth is singularly awkward (cf. Otto, note in loc.). Justin, moreover, claims that he is believing Christ's own teaching when he believes in His Divine pre-existence; which would be more intelligible of John than of the other Gospels (Dial.48, § 267 D). There is, again, a notice of our Lord (ib.106, § 333) which receives its proper interpretation only in Jn. xiii. and xvii.; Christ, says Justin, knew that the Father gave everything to Him, and Himself demanded this. Such are the possible direct references, rare, indeed, but in one case, at least, remarkably noticeable. Indirectly, Justin holds a doctrine of the Word, clear, pronounced, decisive, such as finds no home or base for itself but in the Fourth Gospel. This doctrine Justin does not originate; it is the accepted, familiar, Christian faith put forth for the whole body, as their common belief, without hesitation, apology, anxiety, scruple, or uncertainty. It presents the exact features of the Johannine teaching; the universalism of the Philonic Logos is identified with, and made concrete by, the living, vivid individualism of the Incarnate Messiah. The synthesis is done, is complete, without confusion or doubt. Justin is as definite, as full of sanctioned certainty on the reality of this doctrine of the Incarnate Word, as he is on the facts and discourses represented by our Synoptists. The Life of our Lord is already for him the Life as it is in fusion with the dogma of the Word -- the Life as it is under the manipulation that is displayed in the Fourth Gospel. Have we any cause of sufficient force to have achieved so decided a result but the Gospel of St. John? (Cf. Thoma, in Zeitsch. für Wissenschaft. Theolog. pt.4 (1875, Leipz.): an elaborate discussion which concludes, |Justin cites only the Synopt., but he thinks and argues with the Fourth Gospel, evidencing its existence, but not its apostolicity|; but cf. on last point, Westcott, Canon of N.T. p.100.)

In connexion with this there must be mentioned a passage in Dial.123, § 353 B, in which, if not the gospel, then the first ep. of St. John can hardly be supposed absent from the writer's mind. The peculiar conjunction of kaloumetha kai esmen is essentially Johannine (I. John iii.1, 2); as is the connexion of |sonship| with keeping tas entolas. Justin, again, knows the writings of the Valentinians, and his (according to the evidence of Hippolytus and Irenaeus) must have involved a knowledge of the Fourth Gospel. Altogether, the problem presented by his not quoting John is far easier to solve than the problem of his not knowing it.

As to the rest of the canon, Justin mentions the Apocalypse by name, attributing it to St. John (Dial.81, § 308 A). He can hardly but be thinking of Romans in ib.23, § 241 B. He has references to I. Corinthians (ib.14, § 231 D; 111, § 333 C; Apol.1, 60, § 93), and to II. Thessalonians (Dial.32, § 110). He constantly repeats the prototokos pases ktiseos, which suggests Colossians; he has references which seem to recall Hebrews (ib.13, § 229 D; Apol. i.12, § 60, apostolos . . . Iesous Christos); his words appear in several places to point to Acts (cf. Apol.50, § 86 B; 40, § 79 A). Everywhere he exhibits traces of St. Paul; and his controversy with Marcion must have involved a complete acquaintance with the theology and language of the great apostle.

Throughout Justin claims to shew forth, with a certainty attested by sacrifice and death, a solid body of certified doctrine, which apostolic authority sealed and secured; Christ, as He had been foretold by prophets and announced to the world by apostles, is the assured ground of his faith (cf. Dial.119, § 343 A; Apol. i.39, 42). The apostles are the twelve bells on the border of the high-priest's garment, with the sound of whose ringing the whole world has been filled (Dial.42, § 263 C); the apostles are the evangelical preachers in whose person Isaiah cried, |Lord, who hath believed our report?| the apostles are |the brethren in the midst of whom| Christ gives praise unto God (ib.106, § 333 C). The Apologies have been pub. in Eng. in the Ante-Nic. Fathers (T. & T. Clark) and in a cheap form in the A. and M. Theol. Lib. (Griffith).

[H.S.H.]

Justinus
Justinus (3), a Gnostic writer, author of several books, only known to us by the abstract which Hippolytus (Ref. Haer. v.23, p.148) has given of one of them, called the book of Baruch. The account which that book gives of the origin and history of the universe makes it to have sprung from three underived principles, two male, one female. The first of these is the Good Being, and has no other name; He is perfect in knowledge, and is remote from all contact with the created world, of which, however, He is afterwards described as the Ultimate Cause. It is the knowledge of this Good Being which alone deserves the name, and it is from the possession of it that these heretics claimed the title of Gnostics. The second principle is called Elohim, the Father of the creation, deficient in knowledge, but not represented as subject to evil passion. The third, or female principle, identified with the earth, is called Eden and Israel, destitute of knowledge and subject to anger, of a double form, a woman above the middle, a snake below. Of her, Elohim becomes enamoured, and from their intercourse spring 24 angels -- 12 paternal, who co-operate with their father and do his will, and 12 maternal, who do the mother's will. The principal part is played by the third paternal angel, Baruch, the chief minister of good, and the third maternal, Naas, or the serpent, the chief author of evil.

Lipsius regards this work of Justinus as probably written later than the middle of 2nd cent., representing in its fundamental ideas one of the oldest, perhaps the very oldest, form of Gnosticism, and as exhibiting the passage of Jewish Christianity into Gnosis. We cannot share this view. On comparing the system of Justinus with that of the Ophite sect described by Irenaeus (i.30), the points of contact are found to be too numerous to be all accidental. In the system of these Ophites the commencement is made with two male principles, and one female. On the whole, we feel bound to refer the system of Justinus to the latest stage of Gnosticism, when a philosophy, in which any unproved assumption was regarded as sufficiently justified by any remote analogy, had reached its exhaustion, and when its teachers were forced to seek for novelty by wilder and more audacious combinations; and we are not disposed to quarrel with the verdict of Hippolytus that he had met with many heretics, but never a worse one than Justinus.

[G.S.]

Justinus I
Justinus (12) I., proclaimed emperor (July 9, 518) on the death of the emperor Anastasius by the troops under his command and by the people (Chron. Pasch.331, in Patr. Gk. xcii.858), the choice being approved by the senate (Marcell. Chron.). He was a man of no education, and the affairs of the state were managed chiefly by his prudent minister Proclus the quaestor and afterwards by his nephew and eventual successor Justinian. For the most memorable event of his reign, the end of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, see HORMISDAS. For his relations with Persia see CHOSROES I. in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.).

In 523 Justin issued a constitution against the Manicheans and other heretics (Codex, i. tit. v.12). The former were punished with exile or death; other heretics, pagans, Jews, and Samaritans, were declared incapable of holding a magistracy or entering military service. The allied Goths were exempted from these provisions. Because of the persecution of his Arian co-religionists, Theodoric sent pope John I. in 525 to Constantinople to remonstrate with the emperor. [[345]EPIPHANIUS (17)]

In Apr.527 Justin caused Justinian, who had long taken the chief part in government, to be proclaimed emperor and crowned, and on Aug.1 died, in his 75th year.

[F.D.]

Justinus II
Justinus (13) II., emperor, nephew of Justinian, son of his sister Vigilantia. He was appointed Curopalates or Master of the Palace by his uncle (Corip. i.138). The night Justinian died, a deputation of the senate, headed by the patrician Callinicus, hurried to his house and persuaded him to accept the crown. In the early morning he was saluted emperor by the populace in the hippodrome. The same day (Nov.14, 565) he was crowned by the patriarch John (Theophan. Cron. in Patr. Gk. cviii.525), and received the homage of the senate and people in the hippodrome.

Justin, on his accession, declared himself an adherent of the decrees of Chalcedon, and restored to their sees the bishops who had been banished by his predecessor (Venantius Fortunatus, ad Justinum, 25-26, 39-44, in Patr. Lat. lxxxviii.432). The edict is given in probably a corrupt form by Evagrius (H. E. v.1, in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.2789), and also by Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. xvii.33) Soon afterwards another edict was published, given at length by Evagrius (H. E. v.4), in which, after setting forth the orthodox belief as to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, he exhorted all to return to the Catholic Church, which should remain firm and unchanged for ever; and that no one should for the future dispute about persons or syllables, probably referring to the person of Theodore and the writings of Theodoret and Ibas, and also to the question as to the Incorruptibility of the body of Christ. This edict gained general approval, as all interpreted it in favour of their own views, but none of the various sects returned to communion, in consequence of the emperor's declaration that no change was to be made in the church. Justin also early in his reign sent Photinus, the stepson of Belisarius, with full powers to reconcile the churches of Egypt and Alexandria, but his mission seems to have been fruitless.

For the secular events of his reign see JUSTINUS II., D. of G. and R. Biogr.

In May 568 a rescript was issued to Spes-in-Deum, the archbp. of the Byzacene province in Africa, confirming the privileges of his church and synod by which he was the sole judge of charges brought against any bishops or clergy within his jurisdiction, and in Nov. (Clinton, Fasti, 825) a law (Nov. cxlix.) was promulgated addressed to the bishops and leading men of each province directing them to choose the governors (praesides) themselves and to submit the names to the emperor, who would invest them with their offices. At the end of 570 or the beginning of 571, Anastasius, bp. of Antioch, was deposed and Gregorius substituted in his place. [[346]ANASTASIUS SINAITA (1); GREGORIUS (31).] On May 18, 572, a stringent law was passed against the Samaritans (Nov. cxliv.). They were declared incapable of inheriting under a will or an intestacy and of exercising testamentary powers except in favour of Christians. Otherwise the goods of the deceased were forfeited to the treasury. For the sake of agriculture farmers were exempted from these provisions. Samaritans were also declared incapable of holding any civil or military employments. Baptized Samaritans who observed the sabbath or other rites of their creed were punished with perpetual exile. A Samaritan was declared incapable of having a Christian slave; if he bought one, the slave ipso facto became entitled to his freedom; while a Samaritan slave became free on embracing Christianity. Justin at length was seized with madness, and died, Oct.5, 578, after reigning nearly 13 years.

[F.D.]

Juvenalis, bishop of Jerusalem
Juvenalis (2) succeeded Praylius as bp. of Jerusalem c.420. The ruling object of his episcopate was the elevation of the see of Jerusalem from the subordinate position it held in accordance with the seventh of the canons of Nicaea, as suffragan to the metropolitan see of Caesarea, to a primary place in the episcopate. Juvenal coveted not merely metropolitan, but patriarchal rank, and in defiance of all canonical authority claimed jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, from which he sought to remove Arabia and the two Phoenicias to his own province. Scarcely had he been consecrated bp. of Jerusalem when he proceeded to assert his claims to the metropolitan rank by his acts. A letter of remonstrance against the proceedings of the council of Ephesus, sent to Theodosius by the Oriental party, complains that Juvenal had ordained in provinces over which he had no jurisdiction (Labbe, Concil. iii.728). Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Leo, then archdeacon of Rome, informing him of this and begging that his unlawful attempts might have no sanction from the apostolic see. Juvenal, however, was far too useful an ally against Nestorius for Cyril lightly to discard. When the council met at Ephesus, Juvenal was allowed to take precedence of his metropolitan of Caesarea and to occupy the position of vice-president of the council, coming next after Cyril himself (ib. iii.445), and was regarded in all respects as the second prelate in the assembly. The arrogant assertion of his supremacy over the bp. of Antioch, and his claim to take rank next after Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open remonstrance. At the |Latrocinium| Juvenal occupied the third place, after Dioscorus and the papal legate, by the special order of Theodosius (ib. iv.109). When the council of Chalcedon met, one of the matters before it was the dispute as to priority between Juvenal and Maximus, bp. of Antioch. The contention ended in a compromise agreed on in the Seventh Action. Juvenal surrendered his claim to the two Phoenicias and to Arabia, on condition of being allowed metropolitical jurisdiction over the three Palestines (ib. iv.613). The claim to patriarchal authority over the bp. of Antioch put forward at Ephesus was discreetly dropped. The terms arranged between Maximus and Juvenal received the consent of the assembled bishops (ib.618). Maximus, however, soon repented his too ready acquiescence in Juvenal's demands, and wrote a letter of complaint to pope Leo, who, replying June 11, 453 upheld the authority of the Nicene canons, and promised to do all he could to maintain the ancient dignity of the see of Antioch (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Maximum, 119 ) No further action, however, seems to have been taken either by Leo or by Maximus. Juvenal was left master of the situation, and the church of Jerusalem from that epoch has peaceably enjoyed the patriarchal dignity.

On the opening of the council at Ephesus, June 22, 431, Juvenal took a prominent part in the condemnation of Nestorius. As one of the eight legates deputed by the council, he aided in the consecration of Maximian in Nestorius's room, Oct.25, 431 (Labbe, iii.780; Baluz 571 seq.). In retaliation, John of Antioch and the Orientals on their way back from Ephesus held a synod at Tarsus, which excommunicated Cyril and the deputies of the council, Juvenal at their head (Baluz.939).

When, in 449, the |Latrocinium| met at Ephesus, Juvenal was the first to sign the instrument of Flavian's deposition (Labbe, iv.306). The natural consequence of this open patronage of heresy was that the name of Juvenal, together with those of Dioscorus and the other bishops of the |Latrocinium,| was removed from the diptychs of Rome and other orthodox churches (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Anatolium, 80 ). This alarmed Juvenal, and he faced completely round at Chalcedon in 451, denouncing the doctrines he had supported two years before at Ephesus. The place he occupied in the council indicated that he had been compelled to abate somewhat of his overweening pretensions. Anatolius of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch both took precedence of him, as did the Roman legates and Dioscorus (Labbe, iv.79 et passim). The proceedings had not advanced far when Juvenal, seeing the course events were taking, rose up with the bishops of Palestine in his train, and crossed over from the right, where he had been sitting with the Alexandrine prelates, to the Orientals on the left amid shouts of |Welcome, orthodox one! It is God Who has brought thee over here| (ib.178). This desertion of his old friends barely saved him. Evidence being read as to the violence with which Flavian's condemnation had been enforced, and the brutality with which he had been treated, the imperial commissioners proposed Juvenal's deposition, together with that of Dioscorus, Eusebius, and the others who had taken a leading part in these disgraceful transactions (ib.323). Juvenal evidently felt that consistency must now be sacrificed to the maintenance of his position, and having given his vote and signature to the deposition of Dioscorus (ib.458) and signed the tome of Leo (ib.798), the objections of the commissioners were overruled. Juvenal and his four companions were allowed to resume their seats, amid a shout of welcome, |This is the Lord's doing.| |Many years to the orthodox! This is the peace of the churches| (ib.509). He subsequently took part in drawing up the declaration of faith (ib.559-562) and signed the letter sent to Leo (Baluz.1370). We have a Latin translation of a synodical letter written in his own name and that of the bishops of Palestine, A.D.453, to the
archimandrites, presbyters, and monks of the province confirming the decrees of Chalcedon (Labbe, iv.889).

His enjoyment of his newly acquired dignity was speedily disturbed. The decrees of Chalcedon were not at all acceptable to a large number of the archimandrites and monks of Palestine, who generally held Eutychian views, and they, in 452, addressed letters to Marcian and to Pulcheria against the conduct of their bishop. The emperor and empress administered severe rebukes to the remonstrants (ib.874, 879). The imperial displeasure, however, failed to repress the turbulence of the malcontents, and under the leadership of Theodosius, a fanatical Monophysite monk, patronized by the empress-dowager Eudocia, who had made Jerusalem her home, they threw the whole province into confusion. Juvenal's life was threatened. The walls and gates were guarded to prevent his escape. But he concealed himself, and together with Domnus made his way to the desert, whence he fled to Constantinople and laid his complaints against Theodosius and his partisans before the emperor (ib.858; Cyrill. Scythop. Euthym. Vit.82; Evagr. H. E. ii.5; Theophan. p.92). Marcian took decided measures to restore order. After holding possession for two years, Theodosius was expelled from Jerusalem, 453, and Juvenal was restored. Eudocia returned to Jerusalem, and renewed communion with Juvenal, her example proving influential to bring back the large majority both of monks and laity to the cathedral church (Euthym. Vit.86). One of Juvenal's first acts on his restoration was to hold a council which issued a synodical letter to the two Palestines, declaring the perfect orthodoxy of the decrees of Chalcedon and denying that anything had there been altered in, or added to, the Nicene faith (Labbe, iv.889). Mutual ill-will and suspicion still embittered the relations of Juvenal to his province, and Evagrius complains of the evils which had followed his return (Evagr. H. E. ii.5). Leo (Sept.4, 454) offered congratulations on his restoration, but told him plainly that he had brought his troubles on himself by his condemnation of Flavian and admission of the errors of Eutyches, and that having favoured heretics he cannot now blame them. Leo expressed his satisfaction that he had come to a better mind, and advised him to study his tome to confirm him in the faith (Leo Magn Ep.139 ). In 457 Leo addressed Juvenal among the metropolitans of the East, with reference to the troubles at Alexandria, urging him to defend the faith as declared at Chalcedon (Ep.150 ).

The statement of Basil of Seleucia that Juvenal first |began to celebrate the glorious and adorable salvation-bringing nativity of the Lord| (Patr. Gk. lxxxv.469) must be interpreted to mean that he separated the celebration of the Nativity and the Epiphany, which, till then, had been kept on the same day, Jan.6. We may gather from a letter professing to be addressed by the bp. of Jerusalem to the bp. of Rome that this change was in accordance with the Western practice. Basil of Seleucia, being a contemporary of Juvenal and associated with him in his public acts, may be regarded as trustworthy evidence for the fact. According to Basil, Juvenal built a basilica in honour of St. Stephen on the site of his martyrdom, for which the empress Eudocia furnished the funds. The death of Juvenal probably occurred in 458 (cf. Tillem. Note sur Juvenal, xv.867). He was succeeded by Anastasius. Tillem. Mém. eccl. xv.; Ceillier, xiii.247; Cave, Script. Eccl. i.419; Oudin, i.1270.)

[E.V.]

Juvencus, C. Vettius Aquilinus
Juvencus, C. Vettius Aquilinus, a Christian poet, by birth a Spaniard, descended from a noble family. He was a presbyter, and composed his poem on the gospels during the reign of peace established by Constantine (Hist. Ev. iv.808 sqq.; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c.84; Ep. lxx. Chronica ad 332 A.D.). His works shew an acquaintance with the chief Latin poets.

(i) Historia Evangelica. This is the only extant work attributed to him on the authority of St. Jerome. It is an hexameter poem on our Lord's life, based upon the gospels. It is of interest as the first Christian epic, the first effort to tell the gospel story in a metrical form. Its chief merit lies in its literal adherence to the text. Commencing with the events of Luke i. ii. (i.1-258), it passes to the account of St. Matthew (i.18), and follows that to the end, omitting only a few short passages (xiii.44-53, xx.29-34, xxi.10-13, xxiii.15-26, 29-36, xxiv.28), rarely supplemented from the other Synoptists (v. i.355, ii.43), but having large extracts from St. John, viz. i.43-iv. (lib. ii.99-348), v.19-47 (ii.639 sqq.), xi. (iv.306-404). It is saved from baldness by a clear fluent style, which shews a knowledge of Vergil, Ovid, and Lucan. It seems to have been widely known from the first and quoted with approval by St. Jerome (ad Matt. ii.11), pope Gelasius, Venantius Fortunatus (de Vita S. Martini, 1), Isidore, Jonas Scotus, Bede, and Alcuin (Migne, Prolegg. col.42 sqq.) It has been edited no less than 30 times. The best separate edd. are by Reusch (Frankfort, 1710); Arevalo (Rome, 1792) (reprinted in Migne); and esp. Huemer (Vienna, 1891) in Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. xxiv. Cf. Gebser, de G. Vett. Aq. Vita et Scriptis (lib. i. with intro. and notes), Jena, 1827; C. Marold, Ueber d. Evang.-buch des Juvencus in seinen Verhältniss z. Bibeltext in Zeitschr. für wissenschaft. Theol. xxxiii. p 329 (1890); Kritische Beiträge zur Hist. Evang. des Juvencus von Dr. J. Huemer in Wiener Studien (Vienna, 1880), pp.81-112.

(ii) St. Jerome (u.s) attributes to him |nonnulla eodem metro ad sacramentorum ordinem pertinentia,| but these are not extant.

(iii) Historia Vet. Testamenti. Only extant in parts, and its authorship doubtful.

(iv) Some later writers attribute hymns to him, but there is no trace of any except the canticles in Hist. Ev. and Hist. Vet. Test.

[W.L.]

<<  Contents  >>





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