SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map : Christian Books : Letter L

A Dictionary Of Christian Biography And Literature by Henry Wace

Letter L

Lactantius (1), Lucius Caelius (or Caecilius) Firmianus, a well-known Christian apologist of the beginning of the 4th cent.: |Rhetor erat ille, non theologus: neque inter ecclesiae doctores locum unquam obtinuit,| as bp. Bull says of him (Del. Fid. Nic. ii.14, 4, and iii.10, 20). Lactantius, enumerating previous Christian apologists, seems only conscious of three -- Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian -- but this is explained by supposing that he limits himself to his countrymen, viz. African apologists. St. Jerome mentions an Itinerary written by him, in hexameter verse, of his route from Africa to Nicomedia, as though he were then leaving home for the first time. The African church produced, as did no other country, a succession of learned advocates or rhetoricians, men of the world, who embraced Christianity from conviction, and wrote vigorously in its defence, culminating in St. Augustine, each employing Latin with the freedom of a vernacular, and in the case of Lactantius with so much purity as to have procured for him the title of the Christian Cicero; while Italy produced no Christian apologists and, till St. Ambrose, no great theologian. Divines and men of letters, as well as emperors, had to be sought in the provinces. In all his empire Constantine could find no better preceptor for his eldest son Crispus, then destined to succeed him at Rome, than this African Latin. This brought him to Gaul c.313, the first date we can fix in his career on any tangible grounds. Lactantius had previously been invited to set up a school of rhetoric at Nicomedia. There, doubtless, he was converted on witnessing the superhuman constancy displayed by the Christians, and by his |best beloved| Donatus in particular, on whose sufferings in the tenth and savagest persecution, under Diocletian, he dwells with so much tenderness (de Morte Persecut. cc.16, 35, and 52). Donatus, he tells us himself, had lain in prison six years when the edict of Galerius, published a.d.311, procured his release. In Gaul, Lactantius died, perhaps in the year of the Nicene council, a.d.325. To judge from his extant writings, he must have been somewhat austere, soured it may be by failures, as he had no mean estimate of his own powers (de Opif. Dei, c.1; Inst. v.1-4): a man of few and warm rather than of many friends; thoughtful, learned, conscientious, and pure. Eusebius (Chron. a.d.319) speaks of him as having always been so poor as frequently to have lacked the necessaries of life. St. Jerome says it was his ill-success in getting pupils at Nicomedia, from its being a Greek city, that induced him to write. St. Jerome gives a list of his writings, but whether in the order in which they were published or not he omits to say. The first he names is the Symposium, which he calls a youthful performance; the second is the Itinerary; the third, the Grammarian. Then comes the well-known treatise de Irâ Dei, still extant, which St. Jerome calls pulcherrimum; next, his Institutions, in seven books, extant also, on which his fame principally rests; next, his own epitome of the same work, In Libro uno acephalo (|a compendium of the last three books only,| as Cave explains it; but the first half was claimed by Pfaff to have been recovered a.d.1712 from a Turin MS., and its genuineness, though disputed, is still maintained). The seventh work named by St. Jerome was in two books, addressed to Asclepiades; both are now lost. The eighth, which had disappeared also, was claimed by Baluze as recovered by him; it was published in 1679 at the commencement of his second book of Miscellanies, but with the title Liber ad Donatum Confessorem de Mortibus Persecutorum, instead of de Persecutione Liber unus, which is that of St. Jerome. Judged by its contents, the first is the more accurate title. His four books of letters to Probus, two to Severus, and two to his pupil Demetrian, which St. Jerome regards as eight consecutive books (in Gal. ii.4), are lost. The twelfth and last work assigned to him by St. Jerome is de Opificio Dei, vel Formatione Hominis. The tract de Morte Persecutorum ends with the joint edict of Licinius and Constantine, published at Nicomedia by the former, a.d.313, at which the author lays down his pen in celebrating the triumph of God, with thankful joy and prayers day and night for its continuance. He could not have written thus after the differences between Licinius and Constantine had commenced, and the former joined the ranks of the persecutors; he therefore probably published it when leaving Nicomedia for Gaul. The first chapter of his tract de Opificio Dei shews it to have been written after, probably only just after, his conversion, and |Quam minime sim quietus, et in summis necessitatibus| are just the words that might have been wrung from a recent convert in a heathen capital, where Christians were having to choose daily between death and their faith, and his old pupils were leaving him on learning what he had become. Supposing Lactantius to have been converted about midway in the persecution under Diocletian at Nicomedia, and then betaken himself to writing, penuriâ discipulorum, as St. Jerome says, there was abundance of time for the composition of all his extant works during the rest of his abode there, with the exception of his Epitome. His Epitome and the confessedly later insertions in his Institutions -- e.g. his appeals to Constantine (i.1, ii.1, vii.26), his mention of the Arians, and of the Catholic church, his promise of a separate work on heresies (iv.30) which it would seem he never fulfilled -- would all naturally fall within the period of his removal to Gaul and tutorship to the heir-apparent, to whom he could have scarce failed to dedicate any fresh work, had such been afterwards written. Was he the pupil or hearer of Arnobius in his younger days that St. Jerome makes him in one place (de Vir. Illust. c.80), or contemporary with Arnobius, as we might infer from another (Chron. a.d.326)? There is nothing in their works to connect them, and at the commencement of his fifth book, in specifying, ex iis qui mihi noti sunt (c.1), those who had written against the assailants of Christianity previously to himself, he could scarcely have passed over the work of Arnobius, if already published, and still less if Arnobius, besides being an African, had been his old preceptor. We therefore prefer following St. Jerome in his continuation of Eusebius, and making Lactantius and Arnobius independent: Lactantius possibly the older of the two. Eusebius finds a place for Lactantius in his Chronicon, but none for his supposed master. The work of Arnobius is limited to a refutation of the polytheism of the day and the popular objections to Christianity; that of Lactantius, like the City of God by St. Augustine, which cites Lactantius with approval (xviii.23), first exposes the false religions, but also expounds the true. It has been analysed by Cave briefly (Hist. Lit. i.162), by Le Nourry thoroughly (ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. vi.825), by Dupin, with his accustomed vivacity (E. H. vol. i.185-187, Eng. trans. by W. W.), and by Mountain (Summary of the Writings of Lactantius, i.129). It is trans. in full, with notes, in the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark).

The tract de Opificio Dei may challenge comparison with Cicero's de Naturâ Deorum in point of style and is far superior to it in depth and originality. The tract de Irâ Dei, against the Epicureans and Stoics, is intended to prove God as capable of anger as of compassion and mercy. The tract de Morte Persecutorum is a collection of historical facts tending to show that all the emperors who persecuted the Christians died miserably, and may be compared with Spelman's de non Temerandis Ecclesiis of modern times.

As for his theology, the indulgence should be shewn him that all breakers of new ground may claim. Tertullian was the model that he looked up to most: and no writer had as yet eclipsed Origen. His account of the origin of all things (Inst. ii.9) reminds us of the speeches of Raphael and Abdiel in Paradise Lost (v.577 and 808). We cannot read his latest exposition of the Incarnation (Epit. c.43) without discovering in it some well-known phrases of the Athanasian Creed -- e.g. |The same person is the Son of God and of man, for He was twice born: first of God in the Spirit before the origin of the world; and afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of Augustus.| Dupin, after having expatiated on his many merits, sums up very justly: |He is accused of doubting whether the Holy Ghost was the third Person, and to have sometimes confounded him with the Son, and sometimes with the Father; but it may be alleged in his defence that he meant nothing else but that the name of the Spirit in Scripture is common to the Father and the Son. But whatever the matter is, we find no footsteps of this error in any of his works, what are now remaining; though in some places he takes occasion to speak of the Holy Ghost. He seems to be of opinion that the Word was generated in time; but it is an easy matter to give a Catholic sense to that expression, as we have seen it done to others: and we may be with justice allowed to do so, since he plainly establishes the Divinity of the Word in that very place.|

For further particulars see besides authorities already cited, Le Nourry (Apparat, ad Bibl. Max. Vet. Pat. t. ii. diss.3), Fabricius (Bibl. Lat. lib. xi.), Oudin (de Script. Eccl. t. i. p.307), Lardner (Cred. pt. ii. bk. i. c.65), Schramm (Anal. Op. SS. Pat. vol. vii. p.250), Fessler (Inst. Patrol. vol. i. p.328), Nouv. Biog. Gen. vol. xxviii. p.611. See esp. Brandt in Sitzungsberichte der phil.-histor. Klasse der Kgl. Akud der Wissensh. (Vienna, 1889-1891), cxviii.-cxxv.


Laeghaire (2) (Lagerie, phonetically Leary), pagan monarch of Ireland, reigning at Tara in the county of Meath. In the fifth year of his reign St. Patrick, having spent the winter in the counties of Down and Antrim, in the spring determined to hold his Easter festival near Laeghaire's palace. The monarch, surrounded by his nobles and his Druid priests, saw with wonder and rage the distant light of the Christian paschal fire which was to quench the lights of heathendom, and rode over in force to Ferta-fer-Feic to expel the intruder. But mollified by the stranger's address, or frightened by his words of power, he allowed the Christian mission to be established. We can hardly believe that he continued a persecutor while such progress was made in the spread of the Gospel around him and in his own family. His queen may perhaps have become a Christian; his two daughters, Fedhelm the ruddy and Eithne the fair, were certainly converted and numbered among the saints. Several of his descendants (Reeves, St. Adamnan, 173) are beatified.

He probably died a pagan. The Four Masters give the date as 458, but 463 is more likely (Ann. Tig., eo an., ap. O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Script. iv.111). He reigned probably 35 years. His body was carried to and buried at Tara, in the S.E. side of the external rampart, with his weapons upon him, and his face turned towards the Lagenians, as if still fighting against them. Vitae S. Patricii, ap. Colgan, Tr. Thaum. pass.; Lanigan, Ch. Hist. Ir. i. c.5; Moore, Hist. Ir. i. c.10; O'Hanlon, Ir. Saints, i.163 seq.; Nennius, Hist. c.59, ap. Mon. Hist. Brit. pt. ii.72; Keating, Gen. Hist. Ir. B. ii. pp.325 seq.; Four Mast. by O'Donovan, i.144-145 n. g; Wills, Ill. Ir. i.60; Skene, Celt. Scot. ii.100 seq.428 seq.; Todd, St. Patrick, 6 seq.; Joyce, Irish Names of Places, d ser.230-231.


Lampetius. [[348]EUCHITES.]

Laurentius, an antipope
Laurentius (10), antipope, elected on the same day as Symmachus, four days after the decease of Anastasius II., which, according to Pagi (Critic. in. Baron.), occurred on Nov.22, 498, Laurentius being brought forward in the interests of concession, Symmachus in the interests of unbending orthodoxy. Fierce conflicts ensued. The members of the senate as well as the clergy were arrayed in two parties. At length it was agreed to refer the settlement to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, now reigning at Ravenna as king of Italy, and he pronounced Symmachus the lawful pope (Anastas.). Laurentius at first acquiesced, and accepted the see of Nucerina, but his partisans at Rome recalled him, and for three years after his election Rome was divided into two parties, headed by Festus and Probinus on the side of Laurentius, and by Faustus on the side of Symmachus. Anastasius states that |those who communicated with Symmachus were slain with the sword; holy women and virgins were dragged from their houses or convents, denuded and scourged; there were daily fights against the church in the midst of the city; many priests were killed; there was no security for walking in the city by day or night. The ex-consul Faustus alone fought for the church.| His account implies that more influential laymen were on the side of Laurentius, but that the clergy generally adhered to Symmachus. The matter was finally settled in the |synodus palmaris,| the proceedings of which are supposed to be given under Synod. Romana III. sub Symmacho, the date of which is x. Kal. Novembris. Laurentius is said, in a fragment of a catalogue of the popes printed from a remarkably ancient MS. by Joseph Blanchinus in his ed. of Anastasius, to have retired to a farm of the patrician Festus, and to have died there, |sub ingenti abstinentia.| This account evidently emanated from the party of Laurentius, if not from Festus himself (cf. Pagi's note on Baronius, ann.502 i.).

Authorities. -- Anastasius (in Vat. Symmachi); Frag. Cat. Pontif. in Anastas. Bibl. ed.1718-1835, Rome, t. iv. Prolegom. p. lxix.; Theodorus Lector (lib. ii.), Theophanes (Chron. p.123, ed. Paris), and Nicephorus (lib.16, c.35); Acts of Councils under Symmachus; Libellus Apologeticus of Ennodius written in justification of Symmachus after his final triumph.

[J.B -- Y.]

Laurentius (15)
Laurentius (15), surnamed Mellifluus, thought to have been bp. of Novara c.507. A Laurentius, surnamed Mellifluus, from the sweetness with which he delivered homilies, is mentioned by Sigebert (Scr. Eccl. c.120 in Patr. Lat. clx.572) as the author of a treatise de Duobus Temporibus, viz. one period from Adam to Christ, the other from Christ to the end of the world. That this Laurentius was the presbyter who instructed Gaudentius the first bp. of Novara was maintained by Cotta, an outline of whose arguments may be seen in the Acta Eruditorum (suppl. t. ii. pp.525, 526, ed. Lips.1696). La Bigne (Max. Bibl. Pat. t. ix. p.465, Lugd.1677) suspects that Laurentius Mellifluus was bp. of Novara, and subsequently the 25th bp. of Milan who is praised by Ennodius in his first Dictio. La Bigne grounds his opinion on certain allusions of Ennodius in his second Dictio, which was sent to Honoratus, bp. of Novara (e.g. Patr. Lat. lxiii.269 B). Other corroborative passages have been adduced by Mabillon (ut inf.), as where Ennodius describes Laurentius bp. of Milan pacifying his haughty brethren by honeyed words of conciliation (|blandimentorum melle,| ib.267 A). The historians of literature usually therefore designate Laurentius Mellifluus bp. of Novara, but he is not admitted by the historians of the see, as Ughelli (Ital. Sac. iv.692) and Cappelletti (Le Chiese d'Ital. xiv.526). Three extant treatises are ascribed to Laurentius Mellifluus, viz. two homilies, de Poenitentia and de Eleemosyna, printed by La Bigne in his Bibliotheca and a treatise de Mulieye Cananaea, printed by Mabillon with a note on the author, supporting the view of La Bigne, in his Analecta (p.55, ed.1723). The homilies are in La Bigne (Max. Bib. Pat. t. ix. p.465, Lug.1677) and the three treatises in Migne (Patr. Lat. lxvi.87) with both La Bigne's and Mabillon's notices of the author. Cave mistakenly says (i.493) that the de Duobus Temporibus is lost, for it is evidently the homily de Poenitentia, which opens with an exposition of the |duo tempora,| which terms he employs somewhat in the sense of the two dispensations for the divine pardon of sin. The sin inherited from Adam is in baptism entirely put away through the merits of Christ. Christ the second Adam simply cancelled the sin derived from the first Adam. Original sin therefore corresponds, in a manner, with the pre-Christian period. For actual transgression each person is himself alone responsible and is to be released from it by penitence, with which the treatise is mainly occupied, and so has received its present title. For other notices see Ceillier (xi.95), Dupin (Eccl. Writ. t. i. p.540, ed.1722), Tillem. (Mém. x.259, 260).


Laurentius (36)
Laurentius (36), Aug.10, archdeacon of Rome, and martyr under Valerian, a.d.258. Cyprian (Ep.82 al.80 ad Successum) mentions the rescript of Valerian directing that bishops, presbyters, and deacons should forthwith be punished, and records the martyrdom of Xystus bp. of Rome, in accordance with it on Aug.6. Laurentius, the first of the traditional seven deacons of Rome, suffered four days afterwards. The genuine Acts of this martyrdom were lost even in St. Augustine's time, as he tells us (Ser.302, de Sancto Laurent.) that his narration was gained from tradition instead of reciting the Acts as his custom was (S. Ambr. de Off. i.41). Laurentius suffered by burning over a slow fire, the prefect thinking thus to extort the vast treasures which he believed the Christians to have concealed. He was buried in the Via Tiburtina in the cemetery of Cyriaca by Hippolytus and Justinus, a presbyter, where Constantine the Great is said to have built a church in honour of the martyr, which pope Damasus rebuilt or repaired. Few martyrdoms of the first three centuries are better attested than this one. St Laurentius is commemorated in the canon of the Roman Mass. His name occurs in the most ancient Calendars, as Catalog. Liberianus or Bucherianus (4th cent.), in the Calendar of Ptolemeus Silvius (5th cent.), and in others described under CALENDAR In D. C. A. (cf. Smedt, Introd. ad Hist. Ecclesiast. pp.199-219, 514). He is commemorated by Prudentius in his Peristeph. (Mart. Rom. Vet.; Mart. Adon., Usuard.; Tillem. Mém. iv.38; Ceillier, ii.423; Fleury, H. E. vii.38, xi.36, xviii.33). Cf. Fronton, Ep. et Dissert. Eccl. p.219 (1720), where, in a note on Aug.10, in Rom. Kai., an accurate account is given of the churches built at Rome in his honour.


Leander (2)
Leander (2), metropolitan bp. of Seville from (?) 575 to 600. His life covers the most important period of Visigothic Christianity, and with LEOVIGILD, HERMENIGILD , and RECCARED he plays an indispensable part in that drama, half-political, half-religious, which issued in the conversion council of 589. All that is historically known of the origin of the famous family, which included his two brothers ISIDORE and FULGENTIUS, and their only sister FLORENTINA, is derived from the opening sentence in Isidore's Life of Leander (de Vir. Ill. c.41; Esp. Sagr. v.463) and from the concluding chapter of Leander's Regula, or Libellus ad Florentinam (Esp. Sagr. ix.355). Their father was Severianus |Carthaginensis Provinciae.| At some unknown date, while Florentina was a child, the family left their native place (Libell. ad Florent. c.21), and settled probably at Seville. It is probable that Leander was born between 535 and 540. He would thus be a youth at the time of the family exile. Before 579, the date of the outbreak of the Hermenigild rebellion, he had been a monk, and then raised to the metropolitan see of Seville, perhaps at that time the most important ecclesiastical post in Spain. The Catholics under the Arian king Leovigild had especial need of able and faithful leaders. Probably Leander saw the opportunity of the Catholics in Hermenigild's youth and the Catholicism of his wife Ingunthis, and this conjecture is warranted by the evidence that the persuasive and eloquent bishop, who afterwards led the conversion council, laid the first stone of his great work in the conversion and rising of Hermenigild against his Arian king and father Leovigild. Leovigild's Arian council of 581 was succeeded by civil war between father and son in 582. by had already endeavoured to strengthen himself by alliances with the Catholic Suevi in the N. and the Catholic Byzantines in the S. and E. In connexion with this last alliance we next hear of Leander at Constantinople, |cum -- te illuc injuncta pro causis fidei Visigothorum legatio perduxisset,| says Gregory the Great, describing in after-years (Pref. in Moralia, Patr. Lat. lxxv.510) his first friendship with Leander.

The exact date of this mission is unknown (see Görres, Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, i.1873, p.103); but we incline to place it in 583, about the beginning of the siege of Seville, when effectual support from the empire might have given victory to Hermenigild. In 584 Seville fell and Hermenigild was captured at Cordova. Thenceforward Arianism was triumphant, and that persecution of the Catholics by Leovigild, which is described by Isidore (Hist. Goth. Esp. Sagr. vi.491) and Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. v.39), was carried actively forward. In Apr. or May 586 occurred the death of Leovigild and the accession of his second son Reccared; and Leander, on receiving information as to the state of affairs, appears to have hurried home from Constantinople. (Cf. what Lucinian says of his |haste| on the journey homewards from Constantinople, Ep. Licin. ad Greg. Pat. Esp. Sagr. v.) In Feb.587 the preliminary synod took place at Toledo, in which Reccared and his nobles abjured Arianism, and notice of the step was sent to the provinces.

The Conversion Council. -- In 589 a great gathering at Toledo of the king and queen, the court, and 62 bishops, Arian and Catholic, changed the whole outer face of Visigothic history and entirely shifted its centre of gravity. The causes which led to it had been long at work (cf. Dahn, Könige der Germanen, v. on the political causes); but this third council of Toledo remains one of the most astonishing and interesting events in history. For a detailed sketch of the proceedings see RECCARED. Here we are only concerned with Leander's share in it. |Summa tamen synodalis negotii,| says the contemporary bp. of Gerona, Joannes Biclarensis, |penes Sanctum Leandrum Hispal. ecclesiae episcopum et beatissimum Eutropium monasterii Servitani abbatem fuit.| This justifies us in attributing to Leander the main outline of the proceedings and the wording of a large proportion of the Acts. Reccared's speeches are probably to be traced to him. They are quite in accordance with Leander's known, style, especially with that of the homily which concludes the council and was avowedly written and delivered by him. The homily (Homilia Sancti Leandri to laudem ecclesiae ob conversionem gentis) is an eloquent and imaginative piece of writing, with an undercurrent of reference to the great semi-religious, semi-political struggle which marked the reign of the last Arian king. |The peace of Christ, then,| says Leander,|has destroyed the wall of discord which the devil had built up, and the house which division was bringing to ruin is united in and established upon Christ the corner-stone.| Tejada y Ramiro, Colecc. de Can. de la Igl. Española, ii.247-260; Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, ii. (2), 6, 41; Dahn, v.1159, vi.434; Helfferich, Entstehung und Geschichte der Westgothen Recht, 33-46; Hefele, iii.44-49.

First Synod of Seville. -- Eighteen months after the conversion council, Leander, as metropolitan of Baetica, and in obedience to the 18th canon of the council of 589, summoned the bishops of Baetica to a provincial synod in the cathedral of Seville, |in ecclesia Hispalensi Sancta Jerusalem| (cf. Florez, ix. on the use of |Sancta Jerusalem|). The Acts, on matters disciplinary, are drawn up in the form of a letter to the absent bp. Pegasius of Astigi (Ecija).

Correspondence with Gregory the Great. -- Gregory and Leander, first made friends at Constantinople between 575 and 585, when Gregory was apocrisiarius of Pelagius II. at the East-Roman court. In May 591 Gregory, now pope, wrote a long letter to Leander (Ep lib. i.43, apud Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxvii.497) in answer to his old friend, who had congratulated him on his elevation, reported the Visigothic conversion and the third council of Toledo, and inquired as to the form of baptism to be thenceforward observed in Spain, whether by single or threefold immersion. The pope expressed his joy in the conversion of the Visigoths, declaring that Leander's accounts of Reccared have made him love a man of whom he has no personal knowledge. Let Leander look to it diligently that the work so well begun may be perfected. In a country where unity of faith had never been questioned, single or threefold immersion might be observed indifferently, as representing either the Unity or the Trinity of the God. head; but as in Spain the Arian mode of baptism had been by threefold immersion, it would be well henceforward to allow one immersion only, lest the heretics be supposed to have triumphed and confusion ensue. Finally, the pope sent Leander certain codices; part of the Homilies on Job, which he had asked for, were to follow, as the librarii had not been able to finish the copy in time.

Gregory's second letter, dated July 595 is a note accompanying the gift of the Regula Pastoralis with pts. i. and ii. of the Moralia.

The Pallium. -- In Aug.599 Gregory wrote to Reccared, Claudius Dux of Lusitania, and Leander. The letter to Leander announces the gift of the pallium, to be worn at the celebration of Mass, |solemnia Missarum.| To Reccared the pope writes: |To our honoured brother and fellow-bishop Leander we have sent the pallium as a gift from the see of the blessed apostle Peter, which we owe to ancient custom (antiquae consuetudini), to your deserts, and to his dignity and goodness.| The exact force of the gift of the pallium to Leander has been much disputed. Florez (ix.167) maintains it was nothing more than a mark of honour and distinction, and did not carry with it the apostolic vicariate, which had, however, been bestowed on his predecessors in the see, Zeno, and Sallustius, by popes Simplicius and Hormisdas (Tejada y Ramiro, ii.962, 1015). In support of his supposition that pallium and vicariate were not necessarily combined, he quotes the case of bp. Auxanius of Arles, successor of St. Caesarius, to whom pope Vigilius gave the pallium when the vicariate had been previously bestowed (Vigil. Ep. vii. apud Migne, Patr. Lat. lxix.27). Gams, however, holds that in Gregory's mind at any rate the pallium carried with it the vicariate, and that the phrase antiquae consuetudini is to be taken as referring to the vicariates of Zeno and Sallustius, and as implying the recognition by Gregory of an ancient claim on behalf of the see of Seville to represent the apostolic see in Spain. The various other bestowals of the pallium on Western bishops by Gregory, especially the cases of Augustine of Canterbury (Ep. xi.64, 65) and Syagrius of Autun (ix.108), should be studied in connexion with the case of Leander (cf. Walter, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts, pp.308, 277, and Thomassin, Discipline de l'Eglise, ii. i. cc.25, 26). Very soon after the arrival of the pallium, at latest in 600, Leander died, shortly before the king, whose constant friend and adviser he had been.

Works. -- The Libellus ad Florentinam consists of an introductory letter and 21 chapters, which constitute the Regula. The style is easy and flowing, rising at time to real pathos and sweetness, as in the beautiful concluding chapter with its well-known reference to Isidore. Its laudation of the celibate life and depreciation of marriage are quite in the taste of the time, and, to judge from can.5 of C. Tol. iii., seem to have been then in Spain a distinguishing mark of the Catholic as opposed to the Arian clergy.

The Homily noticed above is the only other work of Leander now extant. Isidore, however, in his Life of his brother (de Vir. Ill. c.41) speaks of three controversial treatises against the Arians, composed by him during his exile from Spain under Leovigild. IsIdore's description shews that they were especially intended to meet the arguments and expose the pretensions of the Arian council of 581. The last-named was probably in categorical answer to the libellus issued after the synod by the Arian bishops and expressly anathematized by the conversion council (Joh. Bicl. ad an.581; Tejada y Ramiro, ii. p.224).

Authorities. -- Besides those already quoted, Baron. Ann. Eccl. a.d.583, 584, 585, 589, 591, 595, 599; Nicolas Antonio, Bibl. Vet. ed. Bayer, 1788, i.290; de Castri Bibl. Española, ii.280; Aguirre, Coll. Max. Conc. Hisp. iii.281-302; Fabric. Bibl. Lat. iv.252, ed.1754; Mabillon, Ann. Ord. S. Bened. i.287; AA. SS. Boll. March ii.275; Amador de los Rios, Hist. Coll. de la Lit. Españ. i.312, 323; Montalembert, Moines de L'Occident, ii.


Leo I., emperor
Leo (1) I., emperor (surnamed the Great, the Thracian, and the Butcher), born c.400 in the country of the Bessi in Thrace, proclaimed emperor Feb.7, 457, and crowned by Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, being the first Christian sovereign to receive his crown from the hands of a priest. Immediately upon the news of Marcian's death, religious troubles broke out in Alexandria, where the Monophysite party murdered the patriarch Proterius (Proteius), substituting for him Timothy Aelurus. The orthodox bishops of Egypt fled to the emperor to make complaint. Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, reported their sad case to pope Leo, who energetically seconded their efforts for redress. The emperor, distracted by the demands of pope and patriarch on the one hand, of Aspar and the heretical party on the other, addressed a circular letter to Anatolius and all other metropolitans, commanding them to assemble their provincial councils, and advise him -- (1) whether the decrees of the council of Chalcedon should be held binding; (2) as to the ordination of Timothy Aelurus. He also consulted the three most celebrated ascetics of the time, Symeon Stylites, James the Syrian, and Baradatus. We possess in the Codex Encyclius the answers of all the bishops and hermits consulted, a most valuable monument of ecclesiastical antiquity. It was apparently composed by imperial order by some unknown Greek, translated into Latin at the order of the senator Cassiodorus by Epiphanius Scholasticus, and first published in modern times by Laurentius Surius. It is in all collections of the councils, but in full only in Labbe and Coss. Concil. i.4, pp.890-980 (cf. Cave, Scriptt. Lit. Hist. i.495; Tillem. Mém. xv. art.167). The bishops, in Aug.458, replied, unanimously upholding the decrees of Chalcedon and rejecting the ordination of Timothy, who, however, maintained his position at Alexandria till 460.

In 468 Leo sent an expedition under the command of Basiliscus, his brother-in-law, against the Arian Vandals of N. Africa, who were bitterly hostile to him on account of his orthodoxy. Aspar and Ardaburius secretly arranged with Basiliscus for its failure, as they feared any diminution of the great Arian power. The emperor, having discovered the conspiracy, put Aspar and Ardaburius to death, and banished Basiliscus a.d.469. The Gothic guards, in revenge, raised a civil war in Constantinople, under one Ostrys, a friend of Aspar, and attacked the palace, but were defeated. Leo thereupon issued a severe edict against the Arians and forbade them holding meetings or possessing churches.

In another quarter controversy burst forth. Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, dying in 471, was succeeded by Acacius, whom Leo admitted a member of the senate, where no ecclesiastic had hitherto sat. Acacius obtained from Leo an edict confirming the 28th canon of Chalcedon, which raised Constantinople to the same ecclesiastical level as Rome. Pope Simplicius resisted the claim, and a bitter controversy ensued, lasting many years and most fruitful in divisions (Milman, Lat. Christ. lib. iii. c. i.).

Leo was very active in church legislation. He made laws in 466 confirming the right of asylum to churches; in 468 forbidding any persons save Christians to act as advocates. In 469 he issued an edict against simoniacal contracts and one of almost puritan strictness upon the observance of Sunday. He forbade judicial proceedings on that day, and even the playing of lyre, harp, or other musical instrument (Chron. Pasch. a.d.467, where the words of the edict are given). The same year he passed stern laws against paganism and issued a fresh edict in favour of hospitals. In 471 a law was published, apparently elicited by the troubles at Antioch, commanding monks not to leave their monasteries. When Isocasius, a philosopher and magistrate of Antioch, was forced by torture to accept baptism at Constantinople, the emperor seems to have personally superintended the deed (Joan. Malalas, Chronogr. lib. xiv.). Leo died Feb.3, 474, aged 73, and was succeeded by his grandson Leo II. Evagr. H. E. lib. ii.; Procopii, de Bell. Bandal.; Theoph. Chronogr.


Leo I., the Great
Leo (5) I., the Great, saint, bp. of Rome, a.d.440-461. We know but little of him before his papacy. He himself and Prosper of Aquitaine call Rome his |patria| (Prosp. Chron., Patr. Lat. li.599; Leo Mag. Ep. xxxi.4, p.85, Migne). His birth must have been about the last decade of the 4th cent. He is said (Vig. Taps. contra Eutych. lib. iv.) to have been baptized by Celestine; but if so, this must have been while Celestine was still a simple priest. There is no trace in his writings that his education comprised any study of pagan authors, and he was throughout life ignorant of Greek (Epp. cxxx.3, p.1258; cxiii.4, p.1194); but his elaborate style indicates considerable training in composition. In 418 we hear, in the letters of St. Augustine (Epp. cxci. cxciv.1), of a certain acolyte Leo, the bearer of a letter from Sixtus, afterwards pope, to Aurelius of Carthage and apparently also of pope Zosimus's letter in condemnation of Pelagianism, addressed to Aurelius, St. Augustine, and the other African bishops. The mention of Sixtus, with whom Leo was afterwards connected, and the date of the occurrence, would lead us to identify this acolyte with Leo the Great. If so, it is interesting that he should have come in contact early in life with the greatest of Latin theologians. Under the pontificate of Celestine (422-432) he was a deacon, or (according to Gennadius, de Vir. Illus.61) archdeacon of Rome. His important place in the church is shewn by two incidents. In 430 the treatise of Cassian, de Incarnatione, against the Nestorians, was written at Leo's exhortation, and. dedicated to him with every expression of respect (Cassian, de Incarn. Praef. Migne, Patr. Lat. i. p.11). In 431, during the council of Ephesus, St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Leo against the ambitious design of juvenal of Jerusalem to obtain for his see the dignity of a patriarchate (Ep. cxix.4., p.1216). In 439 Leo, on the alert against the Pelagians, urged the pope to offer a vigilant resistance to the movements of Julian of Eclanum, who was seeking to obtain readmission to the church without any real recantation of his errors (Prosper, Chron., Patr. Lat. li.598). Very soon after; Leo was sent on an important civil embassy to Gaul. The Western empire was in a condition of extreme weakness. Nominally governed by Placidia and her youthful son Valentinian III., the real power lay almost wholly in the hands of the general Aetius, at this moment engaged in a quarrel in Gaul with general Albinus. It is a sign of the important civil position held by Leo the deacon that he was chosen to endeavour to bring about a reconciliation (Prosper, Chron., Patr. Lat. li. p.599). During his prolonged absence pope Sixtus died, and Leo was promptly elected, and an embassy sent to recall him to Rome. |More than forty days,| says Prosper, |the Roman church was without a bishop, awaiting with wonderful peace and patience the arrival of the deacon Leo.| He was consecrated Sept.29, 440. The first of his extant works is a brief sermon on this occasion, de Natali Ipsius, in which he praises God and returns thanks to the people, asking their prayers for the success of his ministry. (For date of consecration see Ballerini's note, Patr. Lat. lv.193; Tillem. xv. note 2 on St. Leo.)

It was a difficult and trying time. The Eastern empire was in its normal state of |premature decay,| the Western empire was tottering to its fall. Africa was already a prey to Genseric and the Vandals. The devastation of the African church was well-nigh complete. The church at large was in evil case. Without, she was encompassed by the Arian powers; within the Manicheans, the Priscillianists, the Pelagians and the semi-Pelagians, were disturbing her peace; in the East Nestorianism was still rife. There was an extraordinary paucity of men capable of leading, whether in church or state. A man was needed capable of disciplining and consolidating Western Christendom, that it might present a firm front to the heretical barbarians and remain in unshaken consistency through that stormy period which links the ancient with the modern world. The church, preserving her identity, must give the framework for the society which was to be. That she might fulfil her function, large sacrifices must be made to the surpassing necessity for unity, solidity, and strength. Leo was the man for the post: lofty and severe in life and aims, rigid and stern in insisting on the rules of ecclesiastical discipline; gifted with an indomitable energy, courage, and perseverance, and a capacity for keeping his eye on many widely distant spheres of activity at once; inspired with an unhesitating acceptance and an admirable grasp of the dogmatic faith of the church, which he was prepared to press everywhere at all costs; finally, possessed with, and unceasingly acting upon, an overmastering sense of the indefeasible authority of the church of Rome as the divinely ordained centre of all church work and life, he stands out as the Christian representative of the imperial dignity and severity of old Rome, and is the true founder of the medieval papacy in all its magnificence of conception and uncompromising strength. His is a simple character, if regarded with sympathy, not hard to understand and appreciate; representing strongly that side of the developing life of the church specially identified with Rome -- authority and unity; and a special interest attaches to his history from the fact that he stands so much alone, as almost the one considerable man in Christendom. |The dignity of the imperial name may be said to have died with Theodosius the Great.| Among churchmen Augustine was just dead, Cyril very soon to die. The best-known names are those of Theodoret, Prosper, Cassian, and Hilary of Arles. There was not even an imposing representative of heresy; |on the throne of Rome, alone of all the great sees, did religion maintain its majesty, its sanctity, its piety| (Milman, Lat. Christianity, vol. i. p.228). In such an age and in such a position, a strong man like Leo could exercise an abiding influence.

In strengthening the framework of the church, Leo was playing an important part in the reconstruction of civil society. In 452 Attila, having spread desolation over the plains of Lombardy, was encamped upon the Mincius, ready to advance towards Rome. In this extremity Leo, accompanied by the consular Avienus and the prefect Trigetius, met the barbarian, and Attila, yielding to their persuasions, consented to withdraw beyond the Danube.

The terms were discreditable enough to the Roman empire; but that the confidence and courage of St. Leo in meeting the fearful Hun made a great impression on the Eastern as well as the Western world may be seen from the somewhat curious allusion to it by the Eastern bishops in the appeal to pope Symmachus c.510 (Patr. Lat. lxii. p.63). |If your predecessor, the archbp. Leo, now among the saints, thought it not unworthy of him to go himself to meet the barbarian Attila, that he might free from captivity of the body not Christians only, but Jews and pagans, surely your holiness will be touched by the captivity of soul under which we are suffering.| No doubt later ages have exaggerated the importance of Leo's action, as may be seen in Baronius's account and that of later Roman Catholic writers (Ann.452, § 56 seq.). Later tradition has also introduced the well-known legend which represents Attila as confessing himself overawed by a miraculous presence, the apparition of St. Peter, and, according to another account, of St. Paul also, threatening him with instant death if he refused to yield. (Baronius boldly maintains the legend, which can plead no respectable evidence. See Tillem. xv.751, etc.) Again, in 455, when Genseric and the Vandals were at the gates of Rome, the defenceless city, |without a ruler and without a standing force,| found its sole hope in the dauntless courage of Leo. Unarmed, at the head of his clergy, he went outside the walls to meet the invader and succeeded in restraining the cruelty and licence of devastation. What exactly the barbarian promised, and how much of his promise he kept, is not quite certain, but at least |the mediation of Leo was glorious to himself, and, in some degree, beneficial to his country| (Gibbon). To neither of these two encounters between Leo and the barbarians do we find allusion in his extant writings. Clearly, if Leo was the |saviour of his country,| he was not inclined to boast of it. He had little to complain of in the submissiveness of the Western emperor in his relations with himself. Nothing can exceed the ecclesiastical authority which is recognized as belonging to the pope in the constitution of Valentinian, which accompanied Leo's letter into Gaul in 448 when Leo was in conflict with Hilary of Arles (Leo Mag. Ep. xi.). This constitution, which has the names of both emperors, Eastern and Western, at its head, speaks of the |merits| of St. Peter, the dignity of Rome and the authority of a council as conspiring to confirm the primacy of the Roman bishops. It declares that it is necessary for the peace of all that all the churches (|universitas|) should recognize him as their ruler, and that his decree on the subject of the Gallic church would be authoritative even without imperial sanction; yet by way of giving this sanction, it asserts that |no bishops, whether of Gaul or of other provinces, are to be allowed, contrary to ancient customs, to attempt anything (|ne quid tentare|) without the authority of the venerable man, the pope of the eternal city; but that the one law for them and for all is |quicquid sanxit vel sanxerit apostolicae sedis auctoritas|; and if any bishop summoned to Rome neglect to come, the provincial magistrate (moderator) is to compel him. Nothing could be stronger than this language; the document, however, must be considered entirely Western, the result of pressure put by Leo on the feeble mind of Valentinian. (See Tillem. xv.441, who calls it |une loy . . . trop favorable à la puissance du siége [de S. Léon] mais peu honorable à sa piété.|) That Valentinian and his family were much under Leo's influence is proved also by the letters which in the early part of 450 he induced him, his mother Placidia, and his wife Eudoxia, to write to Theodosius II., the Eastern emperor, in the interest of Leo's petition for a council in Italy, all which letters reiterate the views of Leo and assert the loftiest position for the see of Rome (Leo Mag. Epp. liv.-lviii.). Theodosius, however, was not so amenable to Leo's wishes. In the matter of the councils, the pope had to submit to the emperor. It was the emperor who summoned the council of Ephesus in 449 (Epp. xxix.840, xxx.851); Leo speaking always respectfully of him (xxxi.856, 840), but being inclined to complain at least of the short notice (857). The emperor decided the occasion, place, and time; and the pope apologizes for not attending in person (ib.). Again, after the disastrous termination of the Ephesine synod, Leo cannot obtain from the emperor his request for a gathering in Italy. The summoning of councils still depended on the |commandment and will of princes|; and Leo gives a constant practical recognition to the interference of the Eastern empire in ecclesiastical appointments and affairs generally (Ep. lxxxiv. c.3, etc ; cf. also cliii.1, remembering that Aspar was an Arian, Tillem. Empereurs, vi.366). In general Leo conceives of the right relation of the empire and the church as a very intimate one. |Human affairs cannot,| he says, |be safe unless the royal and sacerdotal authority combine to defend the faith| (Ep. Ix.983). He tells the emperor Leo on his accession that his empire is given him |not only to rule the world, but to defend the church| (Ep. clvi.1323). When he praises an emperor he ascribes to him a |sacerdotal| mind (e.g. Ep. clv.1319). The civil power is constantly called upon, at any rate in the East, where Leo could not always depend on the ecclesiastical authorities, to do the work of the church (Epp. cxii.1189, cxv.1203, cxxxvi.), and he justifies the execution of Priscillian in the previous century on the ground |that though the lenity of the church, contented with a sacerdotal sentence, is averse from taking a bloody revenge, yet at times it finds assistance in the severe commands of Christian princes, because the fear of punishment for the body sometimes drives men to seek healing for the soul| (Ep. xv.696).

As an ecclesiastical ruler we will consider Leo first in his relation to the various heresies in the West. Septimus, bp. of Altina, in the province of Aquileia, writes (Ep. i. Migne) to inform Leo that Pelagian ecclesiastics are being admitted to communion in that province without recantation, are being reinstated into their ecclesiastical degrees, and allowed, contrary to the canons, to wander from church to church. Leo writes to the metropolitan to complain, desiring him to summon a provincial synod and extract from suspected persons a condemnation of Pelagian errors (i.591). Of his struggle with the Manicheans we know more. Recent troubles, especially the capture of Carthage by Genseric in 439, had driven many of these heretics to Rome. They were to be seen there moving about with pale faces, in mean apparel, fasting, and making distinctions of meats. They seem to have professed Catholicism and done their best to escape attention (Leo Mag. Serm. xvi.4, xxxv.; Ep. xv.16, p.708). The vigilance of Leo, however, was too much for them. Of this sect he had a particular horror. Their heresy is a mixture, he says, of all others, while it alone has no element of good in it (Serm. xvi.4, xxiv.5). Accordingly, in the beginning of 444 Leo made a diligent search for them. A large number, both of teachers and disciples, and among them their bishop, were tried in the presence of numerous authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, a |senatus amplissimus,| as Valentinian calls it, at which confession was made of the most hideous immoralities in their secret assemblies (Epp. vii. p.624, xv.16, p.708; Serm. xvi.4, and Constitutio Valent., Ep. viii.). Those who remained impenitent were banished in perpetuum by the civil power, and a constitution of Valentinian reviving the previous laws against the sect, dated June 19, 445, put them under all kinds of civil penalties. Leo, by sermons (ix. xvii. xxiv. xxxv. xlii.) and a circular letter to the bishops of Italy (Ep. vii.), did all he could to publish their infamy, and his exertions appear to have stirred up other bishops, both in the East and West, to similar activity (Prosper and Idatius, Chron., Patr. Lat. li.600, 882).Theodoret, writing in 449, counts this exhibition of zeal against the Manicheans one of St. Leo's greatest titles to fame (Leo Mag. Ep. Iii. c.2). In 447 we find Leo sending an account of these proceedings to Turribius, bp. of Astorga (Ep. xv.16, 708. At this period the Priscillianists were exercising a very disastrous influence in Spain. St. Turribius, their active opponent, wrote to Leo for advice, and Leo replies in July 447 (Ep. xv.). He views the heresy as a mixture of Manicheism with other forms of evil, heretical and pagan, and exhorts Turribius to gather a synod of all the Spanish provinces to examine into the orthodoxy of the bishops; with this view he sends letters to the bishops of the various provinces, but urges that at least a provincial synod of Gallicia should be held (c.17). We find subsequent allusions to a Gallician council, to which Leo is said to have written (Labbe, Conc. v.837 A; Idat. Chron. xxiii.), and to a council of various provinces at Toledo in 447, which is said to have acted |cum praecepto papae Leonis| (Labbe, ii.1227 B; cf. Tillem. xv.555 seq.; Ceillier, x.668). Though we hear still of Novatianism and Donatism in Africa (Ep. xii.6), Leo did not take any special measures against these nor other heresies in the West.

Leo's introduction to Eastern disputes is a somewhat curious one. Eutyches early in 448 wrote to Leo apparently deploring the revival of Nestorianism. Leo replied on June 1, applauding his solicitude, and apparently heard no more of Eutyches till early in 449 he received two letters announcing his condemnation in the council of Constantinople -- one from the emperor Theodosius, the other from himself. Eutyches (Ep. xxi.) appeals to the judgment of the Roman pontiff. Leo, however, maintains a cautious attitude; writes to Flavian (Ep. xxiii.) complaining that he has sent him no information about the condemnation of Eutyches, that the appeal of the condemned to Rome was, according to his own account, not received and he himself hastily condemned, though he professed himself ready to amend anything in his faith which should be found at fault. At the same time Leo writes to the emperor, lamenting his ignorance of the true state of the case (Ep. xxiv.). Meanwhile, it appears that Flavian had really written soon after the close of the council to inform Leo, and to Domnus of Antioch and other prelates. His letter, however (Ep. xxii.) had not reached Leo by the end of Feb.449. Had it arrived, it would have been calculated to give Leo a clearer view of the dogmatic question at issue. Flavian's second letter to Leo, in reply to his (Ep. xxvi.), contains no allusions to Leo's complaints of his silence and want of consideration; he characterizes Eutyches's representations as crafty and false, explains clearly the drift of his teaching, and urges the pope to send his subscription to the condemnation, and to keep the emperor on the right side (ib. p.788); the matter, he adds, only needs his assistance to keep it all straight. Leo, now confirmed in his adhesion to Flavian, writes briefly in May 449, assuring him of his sympathy (Ep., xxvii.), followed in June by |the tome| (Ep. xxviii.), one of the most justly celebrated of pontifical decrees nominally a letter to an individual bishop, but really addressed to all the world, Western as well as Eastern. At the same time, Leo sent letters directed against Eutyches's doctrine, and calling attention to his tome, to Pulcheria, Faustus, Martin, and the other archimandrites of Constantinople, to the Ephesine council itself, and two to his close friend JULIAN of Cos (Epp. xxxi.-xxxv.). Meanwhile Theodosius, at the instance of Eutyches, had directed the assembling of a council, which, professing to be aimed at Nestorianism only, excited much alarm in the minds of Eastern prelates and in that of Leo, who, though praising the emperor's zeal for religion, ventures to hint that there is no occasion for assembling a synod in a matter where there is no possibility of doubt -- an opinion which he expresses more strongly to Flavian. Theodosius had sent a request that Leo would be present at the council. This, as he writes to Pulcheria, the circumstances of the city would not permit; and there would, as he tells Theodosius, be no precedent for such a course (Epp. xxxi.857; xxxvii.887). He sent (|de latere suo|) three legates to represent on his behalf the spirit at once of severity and mercy (Epp. xxix. p.841; xxxiv. c.2; xxxiii. p.866). They seem to have left Rome before June 23. Apparently at the beginning of Oct. news reached Rome that the council had been packed and managed by Dioscorus; that Leo's tome lead not been read; that Eutyches had been reinstated, St. Flavian and Eusebius condemned and deposed; finally, that of Leo's legates one only had barely escaped to tell the tale; and though Leo was ignorant of the crowning enormity of the murder of St. Flavian, his indignation boils over (Epp. xliii. p.904; xliv. p.912; xlv. p.921; cxx.3, p.1224; xlv.2). The proceedings of the council are characterized as a |sceleratissimum facinus|; |it was no synod at all, but a |latrocinium,| a den of robbers; its acts are null and void; it cuts to the root of the Christian faith (Epp. xliv. i. p.913; lxxxv. i. p.1051; xcv.2; xlv.2, p.923; xliv.1, 913). Still, Leo is more indignant than dismayed (Ep. xlviii.). The fearful and half-anticipated result of the synod only stirs his energies. There was then sitting at Rome a council apparently representing the whole West, and assembled to consider the present emergency (Epp. lxi.1; xlv.2; xlvi.2; lxix. p.1008). In his own name and that of the council Leo addresses letters to various quarters. The church of Constantinople and the archimandrites (Epp.1. li.) are exhorted to be loyal to the faith and to Flavian, whose death was not yet known in Rome, and they are assured that no one who usurps his place can be in the communion of Rome or a true bishop (p.934). Besides those letters (Epp. xliii. xliv. xlv.), there are two to the emperor, urgently requesting that a more oecumenical council may be held in Italy. Till this has been done, Leo begs the emperor by all that is most sacred to allow everything to remain as it was before the first decision at Constantinople (Ep. xliv.2, p.915). This request, made in the name of all the bishops and churches of the West (|nostrae partes,| xliv.3), is accompanied by the strongest condemnation of the Ephesine council and backed up by an appeal to the empress Pulcheria (Ep. xlv.). The ground of the request is especially the appeal of Flavian to Rome an appeal for the justification of which Leo offers the authority of a Nicene canon (Ep. xliv.916; vid. inf.).

On Dec.25 Leo, still surrounded by his council, presses his request to the emperor again (Ep. liv.); and in Mar.450 writes again to stir up Pulcheria, the archimandrites (Ep. xi.), and the clergy and people of Constantinople, to press, his petition for a |plenaria synodus,| and |next to the divine assistance to aim at obtaining the favour of the Catholic princes| (Epp. lix.5, 981, lx. lxi.). Meanwhile, taking the opportunity of Valentinian's presence in Rome with his wife Licinia Eudoxia (Theodosius's daughter) and his mother, Galla Placidia, Leo gets them all to write letters urging the Eastern emperor to do what he wished (Epp. lv. lvi. lvii.). Galla Placidia wrote at the same time to Pulcheria, expressing detestation of the Ephesine synod, and describing how Leo, when solemnly asking their intercession with Theodosius, could hardly speak for grief (Ep. lviii.).

In his replies to Valentinian, Placidia, and Eudoxia (Epp. lxii. lxiii. lxiv.) Theodosius asserts his continued orthodoxy, but professes his complete satisfaction with the Ephesine synod. His reply to Leo is not preserved, but contained an absolute refusal to do what he wished. Leo had another cause of anxiety. Anatolius had written to him in the end of 449. telling him of his election to succeed Flavian (Ep. liii.). Anatolius had been Dioscorus's representative at Constantinople, and what security had Leo for his orthodoxy? Moreover, he had simply announced his consecration, without asking for Leo's consent to it. Leo wrote in July 450 to Theodosius, whom he still addresses with the utmost respect, requiring that Anatolius should read the Catholic Fathers and the Ep. of Cyril, without overlooking his own Ep. to Flavian, and then make a public profession of adherence to their doctrine, to be transmitted to the apostolic see and all bishops and churches. This he demands somewhat peremptorily, sending legates to explain his views, and renewing his request for an Italian council (Ep. lxix.). This letter he backs up with others to Pulcheria, Faustus, and the archimandrites (Epp. lxx. lxxi. lxxii.). Leo appears even now to have been full of hope (Ep. lxxiii. to Martin), though Dioscorus had the audacity to excommunicate him and the emperor was all against him. But before his legates could reach Constantinople, his chief cause of anxiety was removed. Theodosius died, July 450, and was succeeded by Pulcheria, always Leo's friend, who united to herself as emperor, Marcian, equally zealous for his cause. Dioscorus's hopes were gone. The letter of the new emperor (Ep. lxxiii.), announcing his election, promised the council to beheld specially under Leo's influence (|te auctore|), and the letter which followed the arrival of Leo's messengers at Constantinople asked him either to come to the East to assist at it or, if that was impossible, to let the emperor summon the Eastern, Illyrian, and Thracian bishops to some place |ubi nobis placuerit | (Ep. lxxvi.). We hear nothing of Leo's requirement that it should be in Italy, though he did not cease to wish that it should be there (Ep. xcv.1). Meanwhile Anatolius had willingly signed the tome, as had |all the church of Constantinople, with a number of bishops| -- it appears that it was sent for signature to all the metropolitans (Ep. lxxxviii.3; Labbe, iv.546 C) -- the bishops banished for adherence to Flavian were recalled, and all honour shewn to Flavian's body (Ep. Pulcheria, lxxvii.). At the same time a large number of the bishops who had been induced by fear to assent to the decrees of the Ephesine synod (by July 451 almost all) had testified their sorrow, and, though by the decision of the papal legates not yet admitted to the communion of Rome, were allowed the privileges of their own churches; Eutyches was banished, though not far enough to satisfy Leo, and everywhere |the light of the Catholic faith was shining forth| (Epp. lxxx.2; lxxxiv.3; cxxxii. p.1053). The legates, who returned at once, carried back a number of letters to their master, and in Apr.451 we have a number of letters from him, expressing genuine satisfaction. He commends all that has been done, praises the |sacerdotal| zeal of Marcian, the diligent watchfulness of Pulcheria, and rejoices in Anatolius's adhesion to the truth (Epp. lxxviii. lxxix. lxxx.; cf. lxxxv.3). He praises the conduct of his legates and confirms their wish that the names of those bishops, Dioscorus Juvenal, and Eustathius, who had taken a chief part in the crimes of the council of Ephesus should not be recited at the altar (lxxx.3; lxxxv.2). As for the council, he wishes it postponed, but has to yield to the emperor, and writes to him in June 451 (Ep. lxxxix.), nominating the legates to represent him. He makes it a point that his legates should preside, and that the question of the true faith should not be treated as an open one (Ep. xc.; cf. xciii.). If Leo, presiding in the person of his legates, secures the position of his see, and if the prohibition of maintaining heretical positions (|nec id liceat defendi, quod non liceat credi|) gives security to the faith, there will be no cause of anxiety about the council, but a caution is still needed that the condemnation of Eutyches must not be an excuse for any rehabilitation of Nestorianism (Ep. xciii. end). When the synodal letter of the council of Chalcedon (Ep. xcviii.) reached Leo, it was couched in terms highly complimentary to himself, and brought the best news as regards the question of faith. Eutyches had been finally condemned and Dioscorus deposed. Leo expresses his satisfaction (Ep. to Marcian, civ.). The faith of the church was unmistakably asserted. In Mar.453 he tells Maximus of Antioch (Ep. cxix.) that |the glory of the day is everywhere arisen.| |The divine mystery of the Incarnation,| he tells Theodoret,|has been restored to the age|; |it is the world's second festivity since the advent of the Lord| (Ep. cxx.).

While on this score Leo had every cause for joy, there was one decree of the council against which his legates had protested and which stirred his utmost indignation -- viz. the 28th decree on the dignity of the see of Constantinople, which seemed to imperil the unique position of the see of Rome.

Before treating of this, we will take a general review of the position and influence of Leo as bp. of Rome up to this point of his pontificate. The age into which Leo was born was one which demanded, above all else, a firm consistency and therefore centralization in the church. It was an age of little intellectual energy, and was to be succeeded by ages of still less. The world wanted above all things unity and strength, and this was found in taking Rome for a centre and a guide both in faith and in discipline. Accordingly the papal supremacy made a great stride during Leo's life. He has been well called |the first pope,| |the Cyprian of the papacy,| for we associate with Leo's name the first clear assertion that metropolitans and patriarchs are subject in some way, still undefined, to Rome. What is Leo's own view of his position? In his sermons preached on his |birthday,| i.e. the day of his consecration -- an occasion on which a provincial council used annually to be assembled at Rome -- he expresses his sense of his own insignificance but of the magnitude of his position and of the presence of St. Peter in his see, |ordinatissima totius ecclesiae charitas in Petri sede Petrum suscipit| (Serm. ii.2; cf. iii.3; v.4). St. Peter is the rock; St. Peter alone has to |strengthen his brethren| (iii.3; iv.3). Not only has he the primacy (iii.4) but is the channel through which is given whatever graces the other, apostles have, and so, though there are many bishops and pastors, yet Peter governs them all by his peculiar office (|proprie|), whom Christ governs by His supreme authority (|principaliter|); thus |great and wonderful is the share in its own power which the divine condescension assigned to this man| (Iv.2). Just as the faith of Peter in Christ abides, so also does the commission of Christ to Peter, and |Peter's care rules still all parts of the church| (iii.2; v.4). Thus the see of Rome is the centre of sacerdotal grace and of church authority; it represents Peter, |from whom, as from a head, the Lord wills that His gifts should flow out into the whole body, so that he should know he has no share in the divine mystery who has dared to retire from the solid foundation of Peter| (Ep. x.1, in re Hilary of Arles). The see of Rome again, occupies in the ecclesiastical world more than the position which the empire of Rome occupies in the secular |gens sancta, civitas sacerdotalis et regia, caput orbis effecta latius praesidet religione divina quam dominatione terrena| -- because the Roman empire uniting the world was just the divine preparation for the spread of the universal Gospel (Serm. lxxxii.1 and 2). This, then, is his theory: let us see how he put it in practice. We see him standing as in a watch-tower, with his eye on every part of the Christian world, zealous everywhere for the interests of the faith and of discipline, and, wherever he sees occasion, taking the opportunity of insinuating the authority of his see, not only in the West, but in the East. The |authority of the apostolic see| to regulate discipline and depose bishops is asserted very absolutely to the bishops of Aquileia and of the home provinces in the beginning of his pontificate ; as for the heretics, |obediendo nobis, probent se esse nostros| (Epp. i. v. iv.). With something more of apology (though with the precedent of his predecessors), he asserts his authority -- |in order to prevent usurpations| in Illyria (Ep. v. i). As his predecessors had done, he appointed a vicegerent, Anastasius of Thessalonica, to whom he wishes the Illyrian bishops to submit as to himself. He is to be to the metropolitans as they are to the ordinary bishops, and a regular system of provincial administration is ordained, by which the assent of the papal vicarius is required for all episcopal elections and by which metropolitans are to be ordained actually by him (Ep. vi.4; but cf. xiv.6, where the latter point is modified). Biennial provincial councils, summoned by the metropolitans, referring graver matters to a representative synod, summoned by the vicar, whence again difficult questions are to be referred to Rome, are to maintain provincial discipline (Epp. xiv.7; xiii.2). Moreover, any individual bishop can appeal from the metropolitan directly to Rome, as Atticus, the metropolitan of Epirus Vetus, actually did some years later, securing the pope's interference against the cruel treatment of Anastasius (Ep. xiv.1, p.685). This supremacy of the papal vicar, which is of great historical importance, seems to have been accepted without remonstrance by the Illyrian churches (Ep. xiii.1). Meanwhile, in 445, a letter from Dioscorus of Alexandria, probably announcing his succession to St. Cyril, gave Leo an opportunity of dictating to the church of Alexandria (Ep. ix.). That church owned St. Mark for her founder; should not the church of St. Mark be in complete accord with the church of St. Mark's master? On the strength of this relation between the churches, Leo gives Dioscorus detailed directions about days of ordination and the celebration of mass. About the same time the restless energy of Leo was engaged in his famous controversy with St. Hilary of Arles. This controversy (for which see HILARY), which is of special importance as being the first case in which |the supremacy of the Roman see over Gaul was brought to the issue of direct assertion on the pope's part, of inflexible resistance on the part of his opponent,| arose out of an appeal of a bishop, Celidonius, to Rome against the judgment of Hilary. Though some blame attaches to Hilary, Leo's conduct was imperious, precipitate, unjust, and not over-scrupulous. The temptation to press a disputed claim of the Roman see and extend the Roman prerogative was too strong; Leo's violent language about the saintly Hilary (Ep. x.), his high-handed treatment of Gallic rights, and his attempt to give a sort of primacy in Gaul to Leontius on the mere score of age cannot be defended. He seems conscious that he is treading on doubtful ground in the beginning of his letter to the Gallic bishops, for he is careful to assert that there is nothing new in his proceedings, and that he is only defending the Gallic bishops from the aggressions of Hilary. He professes to consult them (c.4); he fortifies himself with an imperial edict, for which he must be held mainly responsible (vid. sup.); though he apparently excluded Hilary from his communion, he did not venture to depose him from his episcopal functions, and on his death speaks of him as |sanctae memoriae| (Ep. xl.; cf. Tillem. xv.80, 89). The peremptory orders of Leo seem to have obtained but inadequate execution in Gaul (Tillem. xv.86) as shown in the election of Ravennius, Hilary's successor. Leo had desired (Ep. lxvi.2) that the privileges he took from Hilary should be given to the bp. of Vienne; but the latter seems to have taken no part in the consecration of Ravennius, yet Leo speaks of his consecration as constitutionally conducted and divinely inspired (Epp. xl. xli.) and appears in the directions he gives Ravennius to recognize him as a metropolitan (Ep. xlii.; Tillem. xv.93). Of the way Ravennius was consecrated, the bp. of Vienne seems to have made no complaint. He did, however, complain of the ordination by Ravennius of a bp. of Vaison (Ep. lxvi.1). This complaint was followed on the other side by a petition from 19 bishops of the three provinces formerly subject to Arles, asking for the restoration to that see of its former dignity. Leo had now an opportunity to mediate. However imperfectly subservient to Leo's wishes the Gallic church had hitherto been, the tone of this letter is sufficiently abject. The pope's authoritative attitude and the imperial edict had done their work. They simply put themselves in Leo's hands. They ground the claim of Arles on ancient custom, civil dignity, and specially on the fact that in Trophimus that town had had the first Gallic bishop, and Trophimus had been sent by St. Peter; they even claim for Arles a certain authority over all Gaul as the vicegerent of the Roman see. Having received this appeal, so satisfactory in its tone, and the counter-complaint from Vienne, Leo proceeded to divide the authority. He examined carefully, he says, the rival claims of Vienne and Arles, and ultimately assigned a limited authority over four churches to the bp. of Vienne, and the rest of the province of Vienne to Arles; of the claims of Arles to larger metropolitan rights, he says nothing (Ep. lxvi.). This decision seems to have been acquiesced in by Ravennius, but did not finally stop the disputes of the rival sees (Tillem. xv.95, 96). Leo sent also his tome to Ravennius for distribution in Gaul and secret communications, |quae committenda litteris non fuerunt,| by the mouth of the messengers.

Probably c.446 we find Leo correcting some scandals and asserting his authority in the church of Africa, too weak and disorganized now, from the devastations of Genseric and the recently concluded war, to resist interference as in the days of Celestine. He had sent a representative to make inquiries into alleged violations of discipline there in the election of bishops; on receiving his report, Leo wrote (Ep. xii. to the bishops of Mauretania Caesariensis) assuming complete authority over the administration of their church. He even received an appeal from an African bishop, LUPICINUS, and reversed the decision of the African church in receiving him to communion.

In 447 we have seen Leo entering into the affairs of the church of Spain, distracted like the African with barbarian invasions, and dictating the course to be pursued against the
Priscillianist heretics; and the same year he sharply reprimanded the Sicilian bishops for the alienation off church property, of which complaints had been laid before him in a Roman synod by the clergy of the despoiled churches (Ep. xvii.). The Eutychian controversy went far to aggrandize the position of Rome as the seat of dogmatic truth and the refuge of oppressed orthodoxy. Rome's pretensions to a superior jurisdiction are older than her claims to be the source of dogmatic truth. The claim of infallibility was yet unheard, but it went far to lay the ground of this claim that in the last great controversy about the Incarnation Rome's utterance became the standard of orthodoxy. The glory of being the safest dogmatic guide coalesced with increasing authority as the centre of discipline and government. True, the letter of Leo to Flavian went out for signature east and west on the authority of a council; there is no approach to a claim to dogmatic authority as bp. of Rome on Leo's part; still, the letter was Leo's letter and the stream of things was running in the direction of his exaltation. Moreover, the position of Rome at this period made Leo the recipient of appeal after appeal. Eutyches, Flavian, Eusebius, Theodoret, the presbyters Basil and John (Ep. lxxxvii.), made, or were supposed to have made, appeals, and gave Leo opportunities of asserting an old claim. The Council of Sardica had framed a canon, allowing appeals from discontented bishops to pope Julius. This canon, with the others of this council, was in the Roman church included with the canons of Nicaea, and as such had been quoted by the popes; but that it was not Nicene, the African church had shewn quite clearly in the time of Zosimus. Though Leo could not be ignorant of this fact, he still alleges the authority of Nicaea for the right of appeal (Ep. liv. p.917, in the case of Flavian). No |custom of the Roman church| can justify this. (For the Roman canons, see collection in Migne's Patr. Lat. lv. init.; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. § 92.)

Leo appears to make no exact or definite claim over the Eastern bishops through the Eutychian controversy. He professes his |universalis cura| for the welfare of the whole church (Ep. lxxv.) and claims to be kept fully alive to what goes on in the East (cf. Ep. to Flavian, xxiii.), while the power of excluding from his own communion gave him some hold on episcopal elections, which he requires to be notified to him with satisfactory proofs of the orthodoxy of new bishops (cf. his language at his confirmation of Anatolius's election); |nostra communio| all through his writings is an expression of much meaning and weight. Moreover, we have seen that he claimed a right of receiving appeals from all parts of the Christian world, and we shall see him trying to annul the authority of a canon of Chalcedon which displeased him. But when he writes his celebrated letter to Flavian, on the subject of the true faith of the Incarnation, he writes in a tone no wise different from that adopted by St. Cyril in his letters against Nestorius. The bp. of Ravenna (Peter Chrysologus), at the beginning of the Eutychian controversy, wrote to Eutyches recommending him to listen to Rome, because |the blessed Peter who lives and presides in his own see gives the truth of the faith to those who seek it| (Ep. xxv. ad fin.), but there is nothing of this tone in Leo's own words. He classes his letter with that of Cyril (Epp. lxvii.; lxix.1006): |non aspernetur Anatolius,| he says, |etiam meam epistolam recensere, quam pietati patrum per omnia concordare reperiet| (lxx.1010). After the council of Chalcedon, he commends his own letter as confirmed by the council and witnessed to by patristic testimony (e.g. Ep. cxx. to Theodoret, c.4; cf. esp. Ep. cx.3, 117, where he fortifies himself by the authority of St. Athanasius, and Ep. cxxiii.2, where he speaks of his tome simply as |synodalia decreta|; Ep. cxxxix.4; Leo attached the |testimonia patrum| to his tome after the Robber council, Ep. lxxxviii.3).

Of the Eastern bishops, THEODORET, in making his appeal (Ep. Iii.), addresses Leo in language very reverential to his see: |If Paul betook himself to Peter that he might carry back from him an explanation to those who were raising questions at Antioch about their conversation in the law, much more do I,| etc.; but while he admits it expedient that the pope should have the first place (|primas|) in all things, he grounds this position on (1) the greatness of Rome; (2) the continuous piety of the church; (3) the possession of the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul: not the sort of prerogatives on which Leo would ground his primacy. Flavian addresses Leo in a way entirely consistent with the dignity of his own see. He informs him of the condemnation of Eutyches (Ep. xxii.), but only that Leo may put the bishops subordinate to him on their guard; and when Flavian asks for Leo's subscription (Ep. xxvi.), he asks it for an already canonically made deposition. At the council of Chalcedon, Leo was treated with all possible respect. He had required (Ep. lxxxix. to Marcian) that his legates should preside, |on account of the inconstancy of so many of his brethren.| Certainly the doubtful orthodoxy of so many of the chief Eastern bishops, and the connexion of Anatolius with Dioscorus, would have made it difficult to find any one so fit as the Roman legates to preside. Moreover, all the influence of Marcian and Pulcheria was on the side of Leo, |giving him entire authority| (Theodor. Lector. lib. i.), except as regards the place of the council; hence there were reasons enough for giving him the presidency, even if Leo had not been Leo and Rome Rome. As it was, there was no direct opposition and the influence of his legates was strong enough to enforce in great measure his wishes as to Dioscorus. When the synod proceeded to read Leo's tome, some Illyrian and other bishops raised doubts on certain expressions in it. Explanations were given and conferences held, where those points were shewn by the legates and others to be in agreement with the doctrines of councils and the Ep. of Cyril (Labbe, iv.367 C, D; 491 D). Finally, his letter was unanimously received, because it was in agreement with the decrees of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the Epp. of St. Cyril (pp.471 seq.). |Peter,| the bishops cried, |spoke thus by Leo! Leo teaches truly! Cyril taught so! Eternal the memory of Cyril! Leo and Cyril teach alike! This is the faith of the Fathers!| (367, 368).

Thus Leo's letter was treated by the council like the letter of any other highly respected churchman; and in the eighth session of the council Leo's decision on the orthodoxy of Theodoret was not accepted till that bishop had satisfied the synod that he really was orthodox (621 C, D). On one or two points especial reverence for Leo was shewn in the council. According to the Acts of the council, the form in which the papal legates expressed the condemnation of Dioscorus was, |The archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us and through the holy synod now present, together with the . . . apostle Peter, who is the rock . . . has stripped Dioscorus of all sacerdotal dignity| (426 C). This |sentence| indeed exists in a widely different form, as sent by Leo himself to the Gallic bishops (Ep. ciii.), in which Leo is described as |head of the universal church,| and condemns |by us his vicars with the consent of the synod.| The Acta are probably the best authority, as we do not know exactly whence Leo's version came. In any case, the papal legates were regarded as passing sentence on Dioscorus with the consent of the council (cf. Patr. Lat. li. p.989, note b; Evagr. H. E. ii.4). The title |oecumenical archbishop| is used of Leo in the plea of Sophronius against Dioscorus (Labbe, iv.411 D), and |bishop of all the churches,| or |of the oecumenical church,| by the papal legates. It is, perhaps, in mistaken allusion to these expressions of individuals that pope Gregory I. states that the bishops of Rome were called |universales episcopi |by the council of Chalcedon (Greg. Mag. Epp. lib. v. ep. xviii.743, Migne) and that the title thus offered had been consistently rejected (pp.749, 771, 919). The synodical letter (Ep. xcviii.) which the assembled bishops wrote to Leo was highly complimentary. They speak of him as the |interpreter to all of the blessed Peter.| He has presided by his legates as |the head over the members| (c.1). It is he who took away his dignity from Eutyches (c.2). They express indignation at the monstrous attempt which Dioscorus made to excommunicate Leo, |he to whom the Saviour intrusted the care of the vine| (c.3); but all this language, so acceptable to Leo, serves to usher in a very unpleasant matter. The first council of Constantinople had decreed that the bishop of that place should have the primacy of honour after the bp. of Rome, because |it is itself new Rome| (Labbe, ii.947 C). Leo's statement, that this canon had never taken effect, is entirely untrue. On the contrary, the precedence of honour had become an extensive jurisdiction (Tillem. xv. pp.701 seq.); and this jurisdiction had now been sanctioned by the 28th canon of the council of Chalcedon, which professed to confirm the canon of Constantinople. |The Fathers,| they say, |gave with reason the primacy to the chair of old Rome, because that was the royal city, and, with the same object in view, the 180 pious bishops gave equal primacy (ta isa presbeia) to the chair of new Rome| (which phase, however, is afterwards explained by the words |being next after old Rome|); this addition to the rank of new Rome is grounded on her imperial position; it is then further allowed that the see of Constantinople should have the right of ordaining the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and certain other bishops (Labbe, iv.795 D seq.). From the discussion on this subject the papal legates had retired, saying they had no directions from Rome in the matter; but when the Eastern bishops had confirmed the canon, they demanded and obtained another session, when they protested in vain against it (Labbe, iv. sess.12). Doubtless the bishops had been partly inspired by jealousy of Rome. Leo's oft-repeated sneer, that they had been compelled to sign, they stoutly denied in session (ib.809, 813 B seq.). This canon the council announce to Leo: their object, they say, was to secure order and good discipline, and it was made at the wish of the emperor, the senate, and the citizens (Ep. xcviii.1097): they therefore express a good hope that Leo will not resist it as his legates did. At the same time, Leo received letters from Marcian, Anatolius (Epp. c. ci.), and Julian, expressing joy at the successful suppression of heresy, and endeavouring to conciliate him in regard to the 28th canon. Anatolius writes in as conciliatory a tone as possible, urging that the jurisdiction actually reserved for Constantinople is less than custom had sanctioned, repeating that it was at the wish of emperor, senate, and consuls that the canon was passed, and complaining gently of the conduct of the legates after so much deference had been shewn them. It would seem from the words of the |Commonitorium| which he intrusted to his legates (Labbe, iv.829 E) that Leo had had some inkling of what the council might do in this respect. Indeed Eusebius of Dorylaeum stated in session that he had actually read this canon to Leo, when at Rome, in presence of some clerics from Constantinople, and that he had accepted it (815 B). Leo is, however, now extremely indignant. A very angry tone runs through the letters to Marcian, Pulcheria, Anatolius, and Julian (Epp. civ.-cvii.). He urges that when Anatolius's antecedents were so doubtful, an attitude of humility would have best beseemed him (Epp. civ. c.2; cv.3; cvi.5), that secular importance cannot confer ecclesiastical privilege, |alia enim est ratio rerum saecularium, alia divinarum| (civ.3), and that the canon is in flat contradiction to the unalterable decrees of Nicaea, alluding probably to the sixth canon, on the rights of certain metropolitans. He treats very scornfully the assent of the Chalcedonian bishops; it is an |extorta subscriptio|; what can it avail against the protest of the legates? (Ep. cv.1055). He thinks just as little of the decree of Constantinople (Ep. civ.2). He charges Anatolius with having diverted the council from its own proper object to subserve his ambitious purposes (Ep. cvi.2), and finally takes up the cudgels for Antioch and Alexandria, though the bishops of those sees, Theodoret and Maximus, had signed the decree -- which indeed does not appear to interfere with the prerogatives which the canon of Nicaea assigned them (cf. Tillem. xv. p.709), while not only had custom long allowed to Constantinople a position of superior dignity, but that position had been secured to her by a council, of the authority of which Leo had no right to speak so scornfully. The exhortations to avoid ecclesiastical ambition which Leo frequently uses and his contention for the canons of Nicaea did not come with a good grace from a bp. of Rome. If anything can justify Leo's claims, surely it is not the council of Nicaea. In Feb.453 the emperor wrote to Leo, begging him to send as soon as possible his confirmation of the Acts of Chalcedon, that none might be able to shelter themselves under the excuse that he had not confirmed them (Ep. cx.). Leo replied, Mar.11, to the council and to the emperor (Epp. cxiv. cxv.), saying that, if Anatolius had shewn his letters, which he had motives for concealing, no doubt could have existed as to his approval of the decrees of the council, |that is, as regards faith (|in sola videlicet causa fidei, quod saepe dicendum est|), for the determination of which alone the council was assembled by the command of the Christian prince and the assent of the apostolic see| (cxiv.1). To the emperor he sent his assent to the decrees concerning faith and the condemnation of the heretics as a matter of obedience to him, and begged him to make his assent universally known (cxv.1204, cf. also Epp. cxxvi. cxxvii.).

Despite the reverential speeches of council, emperor, and bishops to Leo, neither this canon nor the attitude of the council towards Leo's tome, nor indeed Leo's own way of talking about it, give modern Romanists any great cause for satisfaction with the council of Chalcedon.

Meanwhile, in maintaining the cause of the faith, Leo was asserting his prerogative in many quarters. In 451 Leo's tome was approved in a council under Eusebius of Milan, which sent him a highly complimentary letter (Ep. xcvii.), in which, however, the tome is commended as agreeing with St. Ambrose, just as it was by the council of Chalcedon as agreeing with St. Cyril.

About 452 the East was troubled by the tumultuous proceedings of the Eutychian monks in Palestine, headed by one Theodosius, who elected a bishop in place of Juvenal, seized Jerusalem, and committed all sorts of violences (Tillem. xv. § 138, etc.). These disturbances caused Leo great anxiety (Ep. cix.), and drew from him (Ep. cxxiv.) a clear and admirable exposition of the faith, as lying between Nestorian and Eutychian error. On the death of Marcian in 457 Eutychian risings were attempted in Constantinople and Alexandria (Epp. cxl. cxliv.). Leo (Ep. cxlv.), writing to congratulate the emperor Leo on his accession, urged him to active measures against the heretics, and by constant letters did all he could to keep Anatolius and Julian also zealous for the Chalcedonian decrees and the suppression of heresy. He urged that the question of the faith should not again be allowed to come into discussion. He complained to Basil, the new bp. of Antioch, that he had not, |according to ecclesiastical custom,| notified his consecration to him, and addressed other letters against Timotheus Aelurus to the bishops of Thessalonica, Jerusalem, Corinth, and Dyrrhachium, which he sends for distribution to Julian (Epp. cxlix. cl. clii.). He sent the expressions of agreement to his tome from the bishops of Gaul and Spain in a letter to Aetius, and wrote (Oct.11, 457) condoling with the refugee Egyptian Catholics now in Constantinople (Epp. cliv. clv. clx.). |They are not,| he says, |exiles from God.| Meanwhile, a circular letter from the emperor, asking all the metropolitans to summon provincial councils and collect the opinions of their bishops on the conduct of Timotheus Aelurus and the authority of the Chalcedonian decrees, gave Leo an opportunity of again impressing his views on the emperor, and urging him to make up by his zeal for any laxity in Anatolius (Ep. clvi. c.6). He had both to resist all inclination on the emperor's part to listen to the suggestions which accused his doctrine of Nestorianism, and to oppose strongly the idea of assembling another council, which the emperor had entertained. When the emperor dropped the idea of a council, he proposed, wherever the suggestion may have come from, a conference between some of the Eutychian heretics and an envoy of the pope (Ep. clxii.). This again Leo could not consent to, for it involved the discussion of the faith which had been once for all determined, as if it were an open question (|patefacta quaerere, perfecta retractare, definita convellere|). He sent legates, not, however, to dispute, but to teach |what is the rule of the apostolic faith|; and some time in the same year addressed to Leo a long dogmatic epistle (Ep. clxv.) sometimes, called the |second tome,| closely parallel to the epistle he had before sent for the instruction of the Eutychian monks of Palestine. To it is attached a collection of testimonies, more ample than he had previously sent to Theodosius. In 460 Leo saw his wishes realized in the expulsion of Timotheus Aelurus, who, however, was allowed to come to Constantinople. Leo writes in June to congratulate the emperor on his energy against Aelurus, and to impress on him the need of a pious and orthodox bishop for Alexandria (|in summo pontifice,| Ep. ccxix. c.2). At the same time he writes to Gennadius, the new bp. of Constantinople, who had succeeded Anatolius in 468, urging him to be on his watch against Aelurus, whose arrival at Constantinople he deplored and who appeared likely to have a considerable following there. The bishop elected for Alexandria, Timotheus Solofaciolus, met with Leo's warm approval.

The letters which Leo wrote at this time (Aug.461) to Timotheus, his church, and some monks of Egypt (Epp. clxxi. clxxiii.) are the last public documents of his life. Before his death Leo saw the peace of the church of Alexandria established and orthodoxy supreme, for a period at least of 16 years, in the elevation to its throne of Timothy Solofaciolus.

Though Leo was heedless of the rights of national churches, harsh and violent in his treatment of Hilary, and not always very scrupulous in his assertions about the canons of Nicaea, personal ambition was with him wholly merged in the sense of the surpassing dignity of his see, and his zeal was alway high-minded and inspired by an overmastering passion for unity in faith and discipline, and it might have fared ill with that faith and discipline in those days of weakness and trouble if a man of his persistence, integrity, piety, and strength had not been raised up to defend and secure both the one and the other. The notes of the discipline which he enforced were authority, uniformity, and antiquity, the authorities to which he appealed Scripture, tradition, and the decrees of councils or the holy see. His zeal for uniformity shewed itself in the beginning of his reign by his care that the whole of Christendom should celebrate Easter on the same day. In 444 according to the Roman calculation, it fell on Mar.26, according to the Alexandrian on Apr.23. In this difficulty Leo wrote to St. Cyril, who replied, of course, in favour of the Alexandrian computation, and Leo had to surrender his point: |non quia ratio manifesta docuerit, sed quia unitatis cura persuaserit,| and the Roman cycle gave way to the Alexandrian (Epp. lxxxviii. xcvi. cxxi. cxxii. cxxxiii. [from Proterius of Alexandria], cxxxvii. cxxxviii.). Where it did not clash with his own he could support the authority of other bishops. He maintained the rights of metropolitans and reproved a bishop for appealing to himself in a difficulty instead of consulting his metropolitan (Ep. cviii.2). The bishop was to rule with a strong hand. He must know the law and must not shrink from enforcing it, for it is |negligent rulers who nourish the plague, while they shrink from applying to it an austere remedy,| and the |care of those committed to us requires that we should follow up with the zeal of faith those who, themselves destroyed, would destroy others| (Epp. i.5; iv.2; vii.). Among his disciplinary directions were regulations forbidding the ordination of slaves (Ep. iv.), which, though justified on the ground that they are not free for the Lord's service, are couched in language breathing more of the Roman patrician than of the Christian bishop (cf. |quibus nulla natalium dignitas suffragatur,| |tanquam servilis vilitas hunc honorem capiat,| |sacrum ministerium talis consortii vilitate polluitur|). Moreover a second marriage, or the marriage of a widow or divorced woman, was a bar to orders (Epp. iv.2, 3; xii.5), and those in orders, even subdeacons, must abstain from |carnale connubium, ut et qui habent, sint tanquam non habentes, et qui non habent, permaneant singulares| (Epp. xiv.4 and clxvii.3). The day of ordination and consecration was to be Sunday only (Ep. vi.) or Saturday night (Ep. ix.). The proper antecedents of the consecration of a bishop he declared to be |vota civium, testimonia populorum, honoratorum arbitrium, electio clericorum (Ep. x.4, 6; ccxvii.1). In case of a division of votes the metropolitan must decide and be guided by the preponderance of supporters and of qualifications (Ep. xiv.5). When ordained no cleric was to be allowed to wander; he must remain in his own church (Ep. i.; cf. xiii.4; xiv.7). All must rise in due order from the lower to the higher grades (Ep. xii.4; cf. Ep. xix.). Unambiguous condemnation of heresy is to be required before ordination from those who are suspected; and those who are reconverted must give up hope of promotion (Epp. xviii.; cxxxv.2). The multiplication of bishops in small places where they are not needed is forbidden (c.10). As he insists on the relative dignity of different parts of the body of Christ (Ep. cxix.6), so he reasons that each part should fulfil only its own functions. Laymen and monks -- i.e. those extra ordinem sacerdotalem -- are not to be allowed to preach (Epp. cxix.; cxx.6). He would enforce local discipline by insisting on provincial councils. Baptism was only to be given at Easter or Pentecost, except in cases of necessity (Epp. xvi. and clxviii.). For the Mass, the rule of the Roman church, which he would enforce on Alexandria also, is that where the church will not hold all the faithful, it should be celebrated on the same day as often as is necessary for them all to |offer| (Ep. ix.2). As to ecclesiastical penance, believing that |indulgence of God cannot be obtained except by sacerdotal supplication,| he gives rules for receiving penitents, etc. (Epp. cviii.2; clxvii.2, 7-14), and directs that in ordinary cases (|de penitentia quae a fidelibus postulatur |) private confession, first to God and then to the priest, should be substituted for public confession, the scandals in which might deter from penitence altogether (Ep. clxviii.). The laity under penitential discipline are exhorted to abstain from commerce and the civil law courts (Ep. clxvii.10, 11), and, even those who have at any time been penitents are advised to abstain from marriage and ordered to abstain from military service (cc.12-13). Neo of Ravenna asked whether returned captives who had no memory of baptism should be baptized. On this, as a |novum et inauditum| point, Leo consulted the synod, |that the consideration of many persons might lead more surely to the truth| (Ep. clxvi. p.1406). He greatly dreads appearing to sanction a repetition of baptism, but decides that where no remembrance is possible and no evidence can be obtained, baptism may be given. Leo had a strong opinion on usury. |Fenus pecuniae,| he says, |est funus animae.| |Caret omni humanitate| (Serm. xvii.), and it is forbidden to the laity as to the clergy (Ep. iv.2, 4). |Penitence,| he says, |is to be measured not by length of time, but by sorrow of heart| (Ep. clix.4); |not instituting what is new, but restoring what is old,| is his canon of reformation (Ep. x.2). Among his rules for episcopal government we may notice the following as characteristic: |Integritas praesidentium salus est subditorum, et ubi est incolumitas obedientiae ibi sana est forma doctrinae| (xii.1); or this: |sic est adhibenda correptio, ut semper sit salva dilectio;| or this: |constantiam mansuetudo commendet, justitiam lenitas temperet, patientia contineat libertatem.|

Leo's theology is to be gathered chiefly from some six or seven dogmatic epistles and from his sermons (Epp. xxviii. the tome to Flavian, xxv. to Julian, lix. to the church of Constantinople, cxxiv. to the monks of Palestine, cxxxix. to Juvenal, clxv. the |second tome,| to the emperor Leo, all written between 449 and 458). These epistles are wholly occupied with the controversial statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation. His others are devoted almost entirely to discipline and organization. Of his genuine sermons 96 remain, five, |de natali suo| (vid. sup.), on the see of St. Peter; six, |de collectis,| on the duty of almsgiving; nine, |de dec. mens. jejunio,| on the duty of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting; ten, |de Nativitate,| theological and practical discourses on the Incarnation; eight, |in Epiphaniae solemnitate,| containing more narrative than do the Christmas sermons, and specially applicable to an age no longer tried by persecution; twelve, for Lent, on fasting and works of mercy; one on the Transfiguration; nineteen on the passion, preached on Sundays and Wednesdays in Holy Week, being devotional and practical commentaries on the Gospel narrative; two for Easter, preached on the eve; two for Ascensiontide; three for Pentecost, containing theological statements; four for the Pentecostal fast; four on the feasts on St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lawrence; nine on the fast of the seventh month; one on the Beatitudes; and one against Eutyches when some Egyptian merchants arrived who tried to justify the doings of the Egyptian Eutychians.

Leo's style is generally forcible, and always to the point -- businesslike and severe, epigrammatic and terse in expression. No doubt the love of epigram and antithesis, characteristic of his age, always tends to simple mannerism and obscurity, but in Leo the tendency is under control; he is almost always weighty and clear, and sometimes eloquent. To impress his meaning, he has no objection whatever to repeating himself (Serm. xxv. init.). Some epistles (e.g. Epp. cxxiv. and clxv.) are extremely similar even in language. His sermons are in very much the same style as his epistles. Sozomen (vii.19) says |that in his day in Rome neither bishop nor any one else teaches the people in the church.| This statement is denied and its meaning disputed (cf. notes in loc. and Migne, Patr. lv. p.197), but at least we should judge from Leo's sermons that there is no tradition of pulpit eloquence behind him. His tone is that of the Christian bishop, reproving, exhorting, and instructing with the severity of a Roman censor (Milman, Lat. Christianity, i.233). Sometimes indeed he rises to eloquence, but generally speaks with a terse brevity, more adapted, but for its epigrams which would catch the ear, to be read than merely listened to. The sermons are mostly very short, and the practical aspect of the truth as opposed to the speculative is specially prominent. If Christ has renewed our nature, we must live up to the possibilities of the nature He has renewed. The mystery of the Incarnation is incomprehensible by the understanding; but for that let us rejoice, |sentiamus nobis bonum esse quod vincimur| (Serm. xxix.). Christ must be God and man -- man to unite us to Himself, God to save us, |Expergiscere igitur, o homo, et dignitatem tuae cognosce naturae; recordare te factum ad imaginem Dei, quae etsi in Adam corrupta in Christo tamen est reformata| (xxvii.6).

Leo's theological statements are always characterized by great clearness, fulness, strength, an intense reverence for dogma, and a deep conviction of its supreme importance. His theology is throughout of the Western type, for he is wholly on the practical, not on the speculative, side of theology. Philosophical theory, speculation on the relation of the Persons in the Trinity, there is none, only a clear and powerful grasp upon the dogma as an inexpugnable truth of quite incomparable practical importance. Moreover, his statement of the doctrine of the Trinity is Western, tallying with the Athanasian Creed, with none of the Eastern doctrine of |subordination| remaining, |In Trinitate enim divina, nihil dissimile, nihil impar est, ut omnibus existentiae gradibus exclusis, nulls ibi Persona sit anterior, nulla posterior| (Serm. lxxv.; lxxvi.2, cf. Serm. xxii.2, where he interprets |My Father is greater than I| of the Incarnate Son only). Being ignorant of Greek, he could not be versed in Eastern theology; but in the |testimonia patrum| (Ep. ccxv.), more Greek than Latin fathers are quoted (of course from translations).

His Doctrine of the Incarnation. -- This was produced in antagonism to Eutychianism and is coloured by this antagonism. The Eutychianism which he opposes is not so much the particular doctrine of the particular man as that which he
represents -- namely, the denial of the real and permanent humanity of Jesus Christ. He presents a dilemma to Eutyches: either, he says, denying as you do the two natures in Christ, you must hold the impiety of Apollinaris, and assert that the Deity was converted into flesh and became passible and mortal, or if you shrink from that you fall into the Manichean madness of denying the reality of the body and the bodily acts (Ep. cxxiv.2). If he can escape from this dilemma, he is sure to be only veering to the opposite pole of Arianism. For Christ is spoken of as being |raised,| |exalted,| etc. What is exalted if the humanity is not real? You must assert the divinity of Christ to be an inferior one, capable of exaltation (Ep. lix.3). Thus Eutyches is to Leo the representative of the |Manichean impiety,| as he is fond of calling it, which denies the reality of our Lord's manhood. This gives him his starting-point to assert our Lord's true and perpetual humanity, while avoiding the contrary Nestorian error of abstracting from His perfect divinity, which was always being charged upon the
anti-Eutychians, |in integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris . . . humana augens, divina non minuens| (Ep. xxviii.3) The human nature was really created and really assumed; created in being assumed (Ep. xxxvi.3). There is the whole of human nature, body and soul, and the whole of the divine (Ep. xxxv.2); each nature remains distinct in its operations, |glorificata permanet in glorificante, Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est et carne exsequente quod carnis est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis|; |proprietas divinae humanaeque naturae individua permanet.| All through the life he traces the duality of the operations in the unity of the Person (Epp. xxviii.; cxxiv.5). And so perfect is this unity that what is proper to one nature can be ascribed to the other (|communicatio idiomatum,| c.5). The unity is not a mere inhabitation of the Creator in the created nature, but a real mingling of the one nature with the other, though they remain distinct (Serm. xxiii. § 1), and the result is |ut idem esset dives in paupertate, omnipotens in abjectione, impassibilis in supplicio, immortalis in morte| (Ep. xxxv.2). Just as the visible light is contaminated by none of the filth on which it sheds itself, so the essence of the eternal and incorporeal light could be polluted by nothing which it assumed (Serm. xxxiv.4)

In proof of this doctrine of the Incarnation Leo appeals to several classes of evidence, sometimes to the analogies of reason -- why, he urges, cannot the divinity and humanity be one person, when soul and body in man form one person? (Ep. xxvi.2); constantly to Scripture -- the very source of heresy is that man will not labour |in the broad fields of Holy Scripture| (|in latitudine SS.,| Ep. xxviii. i and 2); constantly to the creeds and the past of the church (for he hates novelty) it is the creed which introduces us to Scripture (Ep. cxxviii.1); we need not blush to believe what apostles and those whom they taught, what martyrs and confessors believed (Epp. clxv.9; clii.); but Leo very often and very characteristically appeals also to consequences, and looks at a doctrine in the light of the necessities of the church's life. What becomes of the salvation of our human nature if Christ have it not? How can He be the Head of the new race? How can He clothe our human nature with His divine? (|Caro enim Christi velamen est verbi, quo omnis qui ipsum integre confitetur induitur,| Ep. lix.4). What is the meaning of the Holy Communion of His Body and Blood, the very purpose of which is that, receiving the virtue of the heavenly food, we may pass into (|transeamus in|) His flesh Who became our flesh? (Ep. lix.2; cf. also Serm. xci.3). What becomes of the resurrection and ascension; nay, what becomes of His mediation? How does He reconcile man to God if He have not the whole of humanity, except sin? (Ep. cxxiv.6, 7, and Serm. xxv 5, etc.).

The Atonement. -- Leo holds the view once prevalent, but now utterly abandoned, which may be stated out of his writings as follows. Man in his fallen state was in slavery to the devil, and, as by his own free will he had fallen, justly so. The devil had certain rights over him which he would retain unless that humanity which he had conquered could conquer him again. In redeeming man, God chose to overcome the devil rather by the rule of justice than of power. To this end He became Man. The Incarnation deceived the devil. He knew not with Whom he was matched. He saw a Child suffering the sorrows and pains of childhood; he saw Him grow by natural stages to manhood, and having had so many proofs that He was mortal He concluded that He was infected with the poison of original sin. So he set in force against Him, as though exercising a right upon sin-stained humanity, all methods and instruments of persecution, thinking that, if He, Whose virtues exceeded so far those of all saints, must yield to death and His merits availed not to deliver Him, he would be secure of every one else for ever. But in persecuting and slaying Christ, Whom was he slaying? One Who was man, but sinless, Who owed him nothing, and thus, by exacting the penalty of iniquity from Him in Whom he had found no fault, he went beyond his right. The covenant which bound man to the devil was thus broken. His injustice in demanding too much cancelled the whole debt of man due to him. Man was free. (Serm. xxii.3, 4; lxix.3; cf. xvi.1, lxi.4. The nails which pierced our Lord's hands and feet transfixed the devil with perpetual wounds, lxiv.2, 3.) Thus, to effect our redemption, Christ must have been both man and God; and it was necessary that He should suffer and die by the operations of the devil; and His death has a value different in kind from that of all the saints (Serm. lxiv.2, 3; lix.1). On the cross of Christ the oblation of human nature was made by a saving victim (lv.3). His death, the just for the unjust, was a price of infinite value (lvi.3; lvii.4). According to this theory, the price was paid to the devil and man was free; |redemptio aufert captivitatem et regeneratio mutat originem et fides justificat peccatorem| (xxii.4). Nothing is said about -- there is hardly clear room left for -- an oblation to God. Elsewhere, however, Leo speaks of Christ as offering a |new and true sacrifice of reconciliation to His Father| (Serm. lix.5; cf. Ep. cxxiv.2, where the sacrifice is clearly conceived as offered to the Father. Cf. also Serm. lxiv.2, 3).

The Doctrine of Grace. -- Living, though Leo did, in a time when this doctrine was still in dispute, and mixed up, as he had been, in part of the dispute, we have little in his genuine works on the subject. He speaks of it indeed (Ep. i.3) in orthodox terms. |The whole gift of God's works depends upon the previous operation of God ['omnis bonorum operum donatio, divina praeparatio est'], for no man is justified by virtue before he is [justified] by grace, which is to every man the beginning of righteousness, the fount of good, and the source of merit.| Nothing in us, he implies, can antedate the operation of grace; all in us needs the salvation of Christ; but this grace of God which alone justifies was given, not for the first time, but in larger measure (|aucta non coepta|) by Christ's birth, and this |sacrament of great holiness| (the Incarnation) was so powerful, even in its previous indications (|tam potens etiam in significationibus suis|), that they who hoped in the promise received it no less than they who accepted the gift| (Serm. xxii.4). On this subject he often dwells; the Incarnation is the consummation of a previous presence and operation of the Son (Serm. xxv.4). All through the O.T. men were justified by the same faith, and made part of the body of Christ by the same sacrament (Serm. xxx.7; liv.1). This same truth comes out in his sermons on Pentecost. There is perfect equality, he there says, in the Trinity. |It is eternal to the Father to be the Father of the co-eternal Son. It is eternal to the Son to be begotten of the Father out of all time. It is eternal to the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of the Father and the Son; so that the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Father, nor the Father and the Son without the Spirit. Thus the unchangeable Deity of the blessed Trinity is one in substance, undivided and inseparable in operation, concordant in will, alike in power, equal in glory.| |What the Father is, that is the Son, and that is the Holy Spirit|; and what the Father does, that does the Son, and that does the Holy Spirit. There was no beginning to the operation of the Holy Spirit upon man since his creation. The descent at Pentecost was not the |beginning of a gift, but the addition of fulness| (|adjectio largitatis|) (Serm. lxxvi.3). The difference has lain not in the virtue and reality of the gifts, but in their measure (cf. on the unity of divine purpose and love, from first to last of the divine economy, the end of c.3 of |the tome|).

Leo holds that the |merits| of saints can work wonders and aid the church on earth (Serm. v.4). He often speaks of St. Peter assisting his people with his prayers (xii. xiii. xvi. ad. fin., etc.) and with his merits (lxxi.4). So also of St. Laurence (lxxxv.). He attributes the deliverance of the city from the barbarians to the |care of the saints| (lxxxiv.1). The Leonine Sacramentary, which certainly contains much of Leo's age, is full of such prayers as |adjuva nos, Domine, tuorum prece sanctorum, ut quorum festa gerimus sentiamus auxilium| (cf. Ep. lviii. init.; ci.3, for similar sentiments). But he never speaks of the blessed Virgin as aiding, nor of any saints but St. Peter, St. Paul (Serm. lxxxii. fin.), and St. Laurence; nor does he invoke them, or direct them to be invoked, though he believes that they are aiding the church by their patronage, prayers, or merits. Elsewhere, distinguishing the value of the deaths of the saints from that of Christ, he very zealously guards the prerogative of Christ as the real source of merit.

To relics he makes no allusion, except where he rejoices that those of St. Flavian had been brought back to Constantinople (Ep. lxxix.2), and perhaps when, writing to Eudocia and Juvenal in Palestine, he seeks to stir their faith through the local memorials of Christ's passion (Epp. cxxxix.2; cxxiii.). Comparing his works with Gregory's, we are struck by the total absence of superstition in Leo. His sermons |are singularly Christian -- Christian as dwelling almost exclusively on Christ: His birth, His passion, His resurrection| (Milman, Lat. Christ. i. p.233). We find constant reference to the special dangers and wants of his time -- e.g. warnings against the prevalent Manicheism. When he converted a number of Manicheans, he at once applied his sermon, regardless of repeating himself, to instruct them (Serm. xxv.1). He reproves the people for forsaking the commemoration of the deliverance of the city, probably from Genseric, which he had instituted on the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, for games and spectacles, and he exhorts them to gratitude to God (lxxxiv.). He reproves idolatrous practices in the church. Magic, charms, cabalistic doctrines, even a worship of the rising sun, were in vogue. Christians, on their way into St. Peter's basilica, would turn and bow to the sun (lxxxiv.2; xxvii.4). This worship, which, as he says, was half pagan, akin to that of the Priscillianists and Manicheans, and half due to ignorance in people who really meant to worship the Creator, but which in any case was akin to idolatry, he deeply deplores and earnestly prohibits.

Leo especially urges purity, strictness, and severity of life, in an age no longer disciplined by persecutions. |Kings now,| he says, |do not so much pride themselves on being born to empire as rejoice that they are reborn in baptism.| The devil tries by avarice and ease those whom troubles could not alienate (xxxvi.3). Hence the interest of his sermons in Lent and at the other fasts of the |Quattuor Tempora| and those (on almsgiving) |de Collectis.| Prayers, fasting, and almsgiving are, in his view, the three chief parts of Christian duty. |By prayer the mercy of God is sought; by fasting, the lusts of the flesh are extinguished; by almsgiving, our sins are atoned for ['redimuntur'].| |The most effectual petition for pardon lies in alms and fasting, and the prayer which is assisted by such suffrages rises more speedily to the ears of God| (xii.4, xvi.21. He uses almsgiving in a large sense almost equivalent to love (xliv. z). |Alms destroy sins| (Serm. vii., quoted from Ecclus. iii.30), |abolish death, extinguish the penalty of eternal fire| (x.). It is a grace without which we can have no other (x.). |He who has cleansed himself by almsgiving need not doubt that even after many sins the splendour of the new birth will be restored to him| (xx. ad fin.). But we must look how we give, so as not, e.g., to overlook the retiring; we must |understand about| the poor (ix.3; |Beatus qui intelligit super,| Ps. xl.1). Our gifts should go to those who do not yet believe as well as to Christians (xli.3), and special thoughtfulness is enjoined for slaves. What God looks to is, he often insists, not the amount, but the spirit of the gift: |ibi censetur qualitus actionis, ubi invenitur initium voluntatis| (xciv.1); |nulli parvus est census, cui magnus est animus| (Serm. xl.4); and gifts given not in the spirit of faith, though ever so large, avail nothing (xliv.2). Love, he insists, is the fulfilling of the law. Truth and mercy, faith and love, go together. |There is no love without faith, no faith without love| (cf. esp. Serm. xlv.). Fasting, too, is constantly enjoined. Virtue is a very narrow mean (xliii.2), and strict self-discipline is ever absolutely necessary. But fasting is a means, not an end. It must not proceed from any belief in matter being evil in itself. |No substance is evil, and evil in itself has no nature| (xlii.4). The object of fasting is to make the body apt for pure, holy, and spiritual activity -- to subject the flesh to the reason and spirit. |A man has true peace and liberty when the flesh is ruled by the judgment of the mind, and the mind is directed by the government of God| (xxxix.2; xlii.2). He insists strongly on this dominion of the mind. Otherwise |parum est si carnis substantia tenuatur et animae fortitudo non alitur|; |continendum est a cibis sed multo magis ab erroribus jejunandum| (xci.2). The |abstinentia jejunantis| must be the |refectio pauperis| (xiii.); |sentiant humanitatem nostram aegritudines decumbentium, imbecillitates debilium, labores exulum, destitutio pupillorum et desolatarum maestitudo viduarum| (xl.4). Fasting without such works of mercy is not a purification of the soul, but a mere affliction of the flesh (xv.). In Lent, prisoners are to be set free and debts forgiven (xli.3). If a man cannot fast from bodily weakness, let him do works of love (lxxxvii.3). Through all Leo's sermons in penitential seasons there runs a great sense of the unity of the church's work and the co-operation of all her members in the penitential discipline and prayers. |The fullest abolition of sins is obtained when the whole church joins in one prayer and one confession| (lxxxviii.3). The merit of holy obedience is the strength of the church against her enemies (lxxxviii.2, 3). Public acts are better than individual ones (lxxxix.2). Leo's remedies for sins -- as well those of habitual laxity as the more venial and accidental -- are self-examination, penitential works, fasts, prayers, works of mercy and moral self-discipline as the means of purification (cf.1.1, 2; lxxxviii.3; xli.1; xliii.3). Forgiveness of injuries (xliii.4) and the exercise of love (xlv.) are insisted on from this point of view: |qui potuit malitia pollui, studeat benignitate purgari| (xlv.4). The Christian is purified by moral effort and discipline and his sanctification is his purification (but cf. xcii.1; l.1, 2; lxxxviii.5).

Another aspect of Leo's work as an ecclesiastical writer remains to be considered. |The collect as we have it is Western in every feature: in that 'unity of sentiment and severity of style' which Lord Macaulay has admired; in its Roman brevity and majestic conciseness, its freedom from all luxuriant ornament and all inflation of phraseology| (Bright, Ancient Collects, append.206); and there is no early Western writer to whose style it bears a closer resemblance and with whose character it is more consonant than that of Leo, its reputed inventor. How much of Leo's work the fragment of the Sacramentary attributed to him by its first editor in 1735, P. Joseph Blanchinius, actually contains, it is impossible to say. |Muratori holds it to be a series of Missae, clumsily put together by a private person at the end of the 5th cent., containing much that [Leo] wrote.| Certainly it is Roman, certainly the oldest Roman sacramentary, and certainly it contains much which is in the style and expresses the doctrine of St. Leo. As certainly Leo's work, Quesnel with propriety specifies two noble |prefaces,| for the consecration of a bishop and a presbyter (|Deus honorum omnium,| and |Domine sancte,| § xxvii.111 and 113, Migne), and an |Allocutio archidiaconi ad episcopum pro reconciliatione poenitentium| (at the end of the Sacramentary in Migne's ed.). In the Liber Pontificalis the addition of the words |sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam| to the Canon of the Mass is ascribed to Leo (Migne, Patr. liv. p.1233). Collects in the English Prayer-book derived from the Leonine Sacramentary are those for the 3rd Sun. after Easter (referring originally to those who had been baptized on Easter Eve), the 5th Sun. after Trinity (suggested originally by the disasters of the dying Western empire), and the 9th, 13th, and 14th Sundays after Trinity. (See Bright, pp.208, 209).

Before concluding this notice of Leo as a theologian, we must mention a statement of Gennadius (de Script. Eccles. lxxxiv.; Patr. Lat. lviii.1107), that the letters of pope Leo on the true Incarnation of Christ are said to have been addressed to their various destinations, and dictated (|ad diversos datae et dictatae|) by Prosper of Aquitaine. It is also stated that one or two of Leo's sermons are found in one MS. assigned to St. Prosper. But Gennadius himself attributes |the tome,| the chief of Leo's letters on the Incarnation, absolutely to his own hand (c. lxx.). It is very probable that Leo should have brought Prosper, |doctissimus illorum temporum,| with him from Gaul to Rome, to assist him in his conflicts with heresy: he may have been secretary to him, as Jerome was to pope Damasus; he may specially have exerted himself for St. Leo against the Pelagians. But the unity and individuality of style which run all through St. Leo's writings, and which appear not least strongly marked in his dogmatic epistles, forbid us to attribute to Prosper in any sense their authorship, though he may have assisted in their composition. (Cf. Tillem. xv. p.540, xvi.25, and note 7 on St. Prosper; Arendt, Leo der Grosse, p.417, etc.)

Leo is said to have restored the silver ornaments of the churches of Rome after the ravages of the Vandals, and repaired the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, placing a mosaic in the latter which represented the adoration of the four-and-twenty elders; and to have built a basilica in honour of St. Cornelius, established some monks by the church of St. Peter, instituted guardians, called at first |cubicularii,| and afterwards |capellani,| for the tombs of the apostles (Tillem. xv. art.73; Vita Anastasii, Migne, Patr. Lat. liv.55, 1234); and received St. Valentine, bp. of Passau, at Rome and sent him to missionary work in Rhaltia (Tillem. xv.175).

Leo died in 461 (Marcell. Chron., etc.), possibly on Nov.10 (Tillem. xv. n.73). He was buried in the church of St. Peter, where, it is said, no previous pope not a martyr was buried (Anast. Vita Pontif., Patr. Lat. liv. p.60, Migne). He has been honoured as a saint and confessor. Benedict XIV. in 1754 decreed him the title of a doctor ecclesiae (Patr. Lat. Iv.835). He is commemorated in the Roman church on Apr.11; in the Eastern on Feb.18 (AA. SS. Apr. ii. p.15).

The genuine works of Leo which we possess are 96 sermons and 173 letters. On works ascribed to him (the de Vocatione, etc.) consult discussions in Migne's Patr. Lat. For history of edd. see Schoenemann's Notitia Hist.-Lit. in S. Leonem, prefixed to Migne's ed. The most famous editions of his whole works are Quesnel's (Paris, 1675), a work of consummate learning, but condemned by the popes because of its strong Gallican opinions, and the ed. of the Ballerini (Venice, 1753-1757), which re-edited Quesnel in the Roman interest. This is now the standard ed. and is reproduced in the Patr. Lat. of Migne, vols. liv. lv. lvi. Select sermons and letters of St. Leo have been edited by H. Hurter, S. J., in Sanc. Patrum Opuscula Selecta, vols. xiv. and xxv. There is an Eng. trans. of selected sermons, with theological notes and |the tome| in the original by Dr. Bright (Lond.1862).

Materials and Authorities. -- i. Leo's own works. ii. The contemporary chronicles of Prosper, Idatius, etc.; Acta of council of Chalcedon, etc. iii. Various Lives of Leo, church histories, etc., especially (1) a very brief life in Hist. de Vitis Romanorum Pontificum of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (9th cent.) in Migne's Patr. Lat. cxxviii. pp.299 sqq.; (2) De Vita et Gestis S. Leonis in ib. lv.153 sqq.; (3) The exhaustive, accurate, and impartial Mémoire of Tillemont (Mém. eccl. xv.414-832), (4) Ceillier's Auteurs sacres, vol. x. (for Leo's works); (5) The Bollandist Life by Canisino, AA. SS. Apr. ii.15, of very little value; and, omitting various partisan lives on both sides; (6) an admirable judgment of Leo's life and works, viewing him chiefly as the architect of the papacy, in Böhringer's Die Kirche Christi and ihre Zengen, i.4, pp.170-309; (7) Milman's, Lat. Christ. vol. i. c.4, an excellent account of Leo and his time; (8) Bright's Hist. of the Church, cc. xiv. xv.; (9) Alzog's Grundriss der Patr. § 78; and (10) |Leo I.| in Herzog's Real-Encycl. A short popular Life by the present writer is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their series of Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans. of Leo's letters and sermons is ed. by Dr. Feltoe in the Lib. of Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers.


Leontius, bp. of Antioch
Leontius (2), bp. of Antioch, a.d.348-357: a Phrygian by birth (Theod. H. E. ii.10), and, like many leading Arians, a disciple of the celebrated teacher Lucian (Philostorg. iii.15). When the see of Antioch became vacant by the removal of Stephen, the emperor Constantius effected the appointment of Leontius, who strove to avoid giving offence to either Arians or orthodox. One of the current party tests was whether the doxology was used in our present form or in that which the Arians (ib.113) maintained to be the more ancient, |Glory be to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost.| Those who watched Leontius could never make out more of his doxology than |world without end. Amen| (Theod. ii.119). Among the orthodox of his flock were two ascetics, Flavian and Diodorus, who, though not yet advanced to the priesthood, had very great influence because of their holy lives. To them Theodoret ascribes the invention of the practice of dividing the choir into two and chanting the Psalms of David antiphonically, a use of the church of Antioch which legend soon attributed to its martyr-bishop Ignatius (Socr. vi 8). They assembled the devout at the tombs of the martyrs and spent the whole night in singing of hymns. Leontius could not forbid this popular devotion, but requested its leaders to hold their meetings in church, a request with which they complied. Leontius foresaw that on his death the conduct of affairs was likely to fall into less cautious hands, and, touching his white hairs predicted, |When this snow melts there will be much mud.| The orthodox, however, complained that he shewed manifest bias in advancing unworthy Arians. In particular he incurred censure by his ordination to the diaconate of his former pupil Aetius, afterwards notorious as an extreme Arian leader. On the strong protest of Flavian and Diodorus Leontius suspended Aetius from ecclesiastical functions. Philostorgius (iii.27) relates that Leontius subsequently saved the life of Aetius by clearing him from false charges made to the emperor Gallus. When Athanasius came to Antioch, he communicated not with Leontius and the dominant party, but with the
ultra-orthodox minority called Eustathians, who had refused to recognize any other bishop while the deposed Eustathius was alive and who worshipped in private conventicles. Leontius accused Athanasius of cowardice in running away from his own church. The taunt stung Athanasius deeply. He wrote his Apologia de Fuga in reply to it, and always speaks bitterly of Leontius, seldom omitting the opprobrious epithet ho apokupos. He even (de Fug.26) accuses the aged bishop of criminality in his early relations with Eustolium. If there had been any proof of this, Leontius would have been deposed not for mutilation but for corrupting a church virgin; and if it had been believed at Antioch the respect paid him by orthodox members of his flock would be inconceivable. The censure of so great a man irretrievably damaged Leontius in the estimation of succeeding ages, and his mildness and moderation have caused him to be compared to one of those hidden reefs which are more dangerous to mariners than naked rocks. Yet we may charitably think that the gentleness and love of peace which all attest were not mere hypocrisy, and may impute his toleration of heretics to no worse cause than insufficient appreciation of the serious issues involved. The Paschal Chronicle, p.503, quotes the authority of Leontius for its account of the martyrdom of Babylas. Leontius died at the end of 357 or beginning of 358. Athanasius, writing in 358, Hist. Ar., speaks of him as still living, but perhaps the news had not reached Athanasius.


Leontius, a scholasticus of Byzantium
Leontius (62), a scholasticus of Byzantium, and afterwards a monk in Palestine, who wrote c.610 a Gk. treatise de Sectis (Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.1193; Cave, i.543; Ceillier, xi.666). Cf. Fessler Jungmann, Inst. Patr. ii.2, p.95; but esp. F. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz and die Gleichnamigen Schrifts teller der Griechischen Kirche (Leipz.1887); also Herzog's Encycl.3rd ed. s.v. |Leonz. von Byzanz.|


Leontius, priest and martyr of Armenia
Leontius (74), priest and martyr of Armenia in the reign of Isdigerd II. of Persia. He acted a conspicuous part in the stand of the Armenian church against the court of Persia, as related chiefly in the History of Varian by Elisha Vartabed and in the historical work of Lazarus of Barb. In Nov.450 700 magian priests, sent under escort to instruct the Armenians in the court religion, arrived at Ankes in the centre of Armenia. There having lain encamped for 25 days, they ordered the church to be broken open. Thus commenced the persecuting violence of Persia. Leontius, putting himself at the head of his people, drove the magian party to flight, after which divine service went on in the church unmolested through the day. A general rising followed, and in 451 66,000 Armenian Christians mustered under prince Vartan in the plain of Artass to encounter the Persian army. Joseph and a large body of his clergy, including Leontius, were present to encourage the Christian forces (Lazarus, § 34 in Langl. ii.296, 297; Elisha, u. inf.). Leontius, who is everywhere mentioned with Joseph, and is usually the orator, as he is the chief inspirer, of the whole movement, delivered a fervent address before the battle (given fully by Langlois), dwelling on the examples of Phineas, Elijah, Gideon, and other famous believers in O.T. (Langl. ii.218). The battle (June 2, 451, ib.298 note) was lost and a remnant found refuge in the stronghold of Pag. This too was taken and many clergy were put to death. Joseph, Leontius, and their companions, were taken to the court of Persia, and put on their defence. Finally they and four others were executed on the 25th of the month Hroditz in the 16th year of Isdigerd (a.d.455), in the province of Abar, near a village of the Mogs named Révan. The account of the martyrdom has every appearance of being a genuine coeval record, simple, natural, unlegendary. Lazarus himself wrote in the following generation, and his position gave him access to the best authorities, which he describes, especially assuring his readers that he faithfully reports the last words of the martyrs. The most severely dealt with was Leontius, he being regarded as the chief instigator of the Armenian resistance. The general history of these events may be read in Saint-Martin's Le Beau, t. vi. pp.258-318.


Leovigild, Arian king of the Visigoths
Leovigild (LEUVICHILD), Arian king of the Visigoths in Spain from 569 to Apr. or May 586. His reign and that of his successor, the convert RECCARED), represent the crisis of Visigothic history, religious and political.

Upon the death of Athanagild in the winter of 567, the Gothic throne remained unfilled until in 568 Leova, dux of the Septimanian province, was made king by the magnates of Gallia Gothica. In 569 he assigned to his younger brother Leovigild the government of the Spanish portion. In the first year of his reign Leovigild married Goisvintha, the widow of his predecessor Athanagild and a strong Arian (Greg. Tur. H. F. v.39). By a previous marriage he had two sons, Hermenigild and Reccared. Leovigild faced the situation with success. His first campaign (a.d.569) was against the Byzantine settlers and garrisons of the Baza and Malaga districts. For 20 years Cordova had refused to acknowledge the lordship of the Goths, and the great town of the Baetis had been the headquarters of the Imperialist and Catholic power in the Peninsula. Its fall (early in 572?) was a heavy blow to the imperial cause in Spain (Joannes Bicl. Esp. Sagr. vi.377). In 572 (573 according to J. Biel.) Leova died, and Leovigild remained master of both divisions of the kingdom.

Hermenigild's Rebellion. -- In 572 (or 573) the king had made both the sons of his first marriage |consortes regni| (J. Bicl. p.378), and before 580 both were betrothed to Frankish princesses, Hermenigild to his step-niece Ingunthis, granddaughter of Goisvintha, Leovigild's second wife, Reccared to Ingunthis's first cousin, Rigunthis, daughter of Chilperic and Fredegonde. In 580 Hermenigild's bride, a girl of 12 or 13, passed the Pyrenees, |cum magno apparatu| (Greg. Tur. v.39), having been exhorted on her way by bp. Fronimius of Agde to hold fast her orthodox profession in the midst of the Arian family into which she had married, and who no doubt expected her to become an Arian. She stood firm, and dissension speedily arose with her Arian grandmother. In order to secure family peace Leovigild assigned to Hermenigild and Ingunthis the town of Seville, where the influence of his wife, says Gregory of Tours -- of the famous metropolitan of Baetica, Leander, according to Gregory the Great, Dial. iii.41 converted Hermenigild to Catholicism (Hist. Fr. v.39; Paul. Diac. W. iii.21). He was confirmed in the orthodox faith by Leander. The son thus placed himself in opposition to his father and to all the Gothic traditions, and was brought into natural alliance with the forces threatening the Gothic state, with the Byzantines in the S., the Suevi in the N., and the disaffection smouldering among Leovigild's provincial subjects. The young couple may well have appeared to the Catholics convenient instruments for dealing a deadly blow at the heretical Gothic monarchy; while in the case of the Byzantines a strictly political motive would also be present.

The peril was a grave one. Leovigild, with a combination of energy and prudence, assembled a council of Arian bishops (581, mentioned in C. Tol. iii. as occurring in the 12th year of Leovigild), which drew up a formula designed to facilitate the conversion of Catholics to Arianism. Rebaptism was no longer demanded as heretofore. Converts should give glory to the Father |per Filium in Spiritu Sancto.| (The Gloria Patri plays an important part in the history of Spanish Arianism. Cf. Greg. of Tours's conversation with Leovigild's envoy, the Arian Oppila -- Hist. Franc. vi.40, and C. Tol. iii.) A libellus containing the decisions of the council was widely circulated (C. Tol. iii.16; Tejada y Ramiro, ii.) and other temptations were offered to the Catholic bishops and clergy. Isidore and Joannes mournfully confess that many yielded. The king also began to pay scrupulous respect to Catholic feeling and belief and to Catholic saints, and to pray in Catholic churches (Greg. Tur. vi.18). |I believe,| he is reported to have said, |with firmness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, equal to the Father, but I do not at all believe that the Holy Ghost is God, since in no book of Scripture do we read that He is God.| By such means Leovigild endeavoured to secure the Catholic party within the territory outside Hermenigild's influence.

During 581 and 582 Hermenigild had assumed a more and more formidable position, but Leovigild marched S. to the siege of Seville, which lasted through 583 into 584, and after the fall of Seville up the Guadalquivir valley to Cordova. Here the rebellion collapsed. The imperial prefect was bribed to give up Hermenigild, who took refuge in a church, whence he was tempted by the promises of his father and brother. Leovigild embraced and pardoned him within the church, but as soon as he was drawn thence is reported to have ordered him to be despoiled of his royal dress and of his servants (Hist. Franc. vi.43). He was conveyed to Toledo, and thence exiled to Valencia (a.d.584) (Joh. Bicl. p.383), and in 586 met his death at Tarraco at the hands of Sisebert. Upon this brilliant success followed the final incorporation of the Suevi with the Gothic state in 585.

Persecution of the Catholics. -- Leovigild had crushed the Catholic and Byzantine conspiracy of which Hermenigild had been the instrument, and there followed an outbreak of that savage and fanatical temper so characteristic of the Visigothic race. The persecuting temper of the Arian kings, however, had always some political justification. The Catholic church was the natural foe of her Arian rulers, and when her attempts to shake them off failed, it was inevitable that the penalty should fall heavily on her and on her bishops. Leander of Seville was banished, Fronimius of Agde was obliged to fly into Merovingian territory (Hist. Franc. ix.24), an Arian bishop was sent to Merida, and Masona, after ineffectual attempts by the king to win him over to Arianism, was imprisoned (Paulus Emerit. Esp. Sagr. xiii. p.369). >From the signatures at the conversion council it is evident that in many sees, especially within the newly annexed Suevian territory, a large but indefinite number of Catholic bishops were replaced by Arians. (On the general subject of the persecution, cf. Greg. Tur. v.39, and for various doubtful details of it, see Greg. Tur. Glor. Conf. xii.; Glor. Mart. Ixxxii.; and de Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emerit. c. xi.)

Leovigild died in Apr. or May, 586, at Toledo, according to some reports constant to the beliefs in which he had lived, according to others -- less trustworthy -- a repentant convert to Catholicism, mourning over the unrighteous death of his first-born son.

|Leovigild's reign,| says Dahn, |represents the last attempt to maintain the Gothic state in its traditional aspects and character by the strenuous use of all possible weapons against its traditional dangers -- war with Catholicism, chastisement of the nobility, reinvigoration of the monarchy, and defence of it against its hostile neighbours| (v.150). An Arian monarchy, strong in all directions -- towards its own pillars and supporters, the Gothic nobles, towards foreign outsiders, and towards its natural enemy Catholicism -- this appears to have been Leovigild's ideal. To its influence may be traced most of the actions of his government, the association of his sons, his treatment of the rebellious and murderous nobles, his attitude towards the Catholic bishops, and, above all, certain alterations in the outer aspects of Gothic kingship which mark his reign and shew him prepared to accept just so much of Roman custom as would further his ends.

The conversations which Gregory of Tours reports between himself and Leovigild's Arian envoys on their way through Tours to Soissons or Paris (H. F. v.44; vi.40) throw much light upon the every-day social relations between Arianism and Catholicism at the time.

Sources. -- Joannes Biclarensis, abbat of Biclaro and bp. of Gerona, a contemporary of Leovigild, his Chronicon, apud Florez. Esp. Sagr. vi.; Isidore of Seville, writing c.630, Hist. Goth. ib.; Paulus Diaconus Emeritensis, fl.650, de Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emeritensium Esp. Sagr. xiii. Dahn's Könige der Germanen remains the best account of the reign in point of insight and treatment; an exhaustive discussion of all the moot points is that by Prof. F. Görres, |Kritische Untersuchungen über den Aufstand and das Martyrium des westgothischen Königssohnes Hermenigild,| in Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. (1873).


Leucius, author of N.T. apocryphal additions
Leucius (1), the reputed author of large apocryphal additions to the N.T. history, which originated in heretical circles, and which, though now lost, were much current in early times. The fullest account is that given by Photius (Cod.114), who describes a book, called The Circuits of the Apostles, which contained the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, and purported to have been written by Leucius Charinus. This second name Charinus is peculiar to Photius, earlier writers calling the author simply Leucius, a name variously altered by transcribers. Photius characterizes the book as in style utterly unlike the genuine N.T. writings, and full of folly, self-contradiction, falsehood, and impiety. It taught the existence of two gods -- an evil one, the God of the Jews, having Simon Magus as his minister, and a good one, from Whom Christ came. It confounded the Father and the Son; denied the reality of Christ's Incarnation, and gave a Docetic account of His life on earth and especially of His crucifixion. It condemned marriage and regarded all generation as the work of the evil principle; denied that demons were created by God; related childish stories of miraculous restoration to life, of both men and cattle; and in the Acts of John used language which the Iconoclasts regarded as favouring them. From this description we can identify as the same work a collection of Apostolic Acts, from which extracts were read at the 2nd council of Nicaea (Actio v., Mansi, xiii.167), the story of Lycomedes (see D. C. B.4-vol. ed.) being that made use of by the Iconoclasts, and the Docetic tales being from this work. In the council was next read a citation from Amphilochius of Iconium, denouncing certain heretical Acts of the Apostles, and in particular arguing against the truth of a story, evidently that to which we have just referred, because it represented St. John as on the Mount of Olives during the crucifixion, and so contradicted the gospel, which relates that he was close to the Cross. With this evidence that the work read by Photius was in existence before the end of the 4th cent., we may probably refer to the same source a statement of Epiphanius (Haer.51, p.427) that Leucius was a disciple of John and joined his master in opposing the Ebionites. Church writers frequently reject the doctrine of heretical apocrypha and yet accept stories told in such documents as true, provided there were no doctrinal reason for rejecting them. The Docetic Leucius, who denied the true manhood of our Lord, was at the opposite pole from the Ebionites, who asserted Him to be mere man, and therefore the Acts of John might well have contained a confutation of Ebionism. The Acts of Leucius were in use among the Manichees in the time of St. Augustine. Faustus the Manichean (bk.30, c.4, vol. viii. p.447) appeals to Acts of the four apostles mentioned by Photius (Peter, Andrew, Thomas, and John), charging the Catholic party with wrongly excluding them from their canon. In several places Augustine refers to the same Acts (Copt. Adimant.117, viii.137, 139; Cont. Faust. xxii.79, p.409; Cont. adv. Leg. et Proph. i.20, p.570), and he names as the author Leutius, the name being written in some MSS. Levitius or Leuticius (Act. cum Felice, ii.6, p.489; see also de Fid. cc.5, 38, App. pp.25, 33). In the passage last cited, the writer, supposed to be Evodius of Uzala, a contemporary of Augustine, quotes from the Acts of Andrew a story of Maximilla, the wife of the proconsul Egeas under whom St. Andrew suffered, who, to avoid having intercourse with her husband, without his knowledge substituted her maid in her own place; and on another occasion, when she and her companion were engaged hearing the apostle, an angel, by imitating their voices, deceived the husband into the belief that they were still in her bedchamber. This story, which agrees with what Photius tells of the author's condemnation of sexual intercourse, is much softened in the still extant Acts of Pseudo-Abdias, which are an orthodox recasting of a heretical original. We find still the names of Maximilla and Egeas; but Maximilla does not refuse intercourse with her husband, and only excites his displeasure because, on account of her eagerness to hear the apostle, she can be with him less frequently; and, without any angelic deception, providential means are devised to prevent Egeas from surprising his wife at the Christian meeting. These Augustinian notices enable us to infer that it was the same work Philaster had in view when he stated (Haer.88) that the Manichees had Acts purporting to be written by disciples of St. Andrew, and describing apostle's doings when he passed from Pontus into Greece. He adds that these heretics had also Acts of Peter, John, and Paul, containing stories of miracles in which beasts were made to speak; for that these heretics counted the souls of men and of beasts alike (see Epiph. Haer.66, p.625). In the Gelasian decree on apocryphal books we read: |Libri omnes, quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocryphi,| where we have various readings, Lucianus and Seleucius (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont.463). In the spurious correspondence between Jerome and Chromatius and Heliodorus, Jerome is represented as giving an orthodox version of certain authentic additions to St. Matthew's narrative, of which a heretical version had been given by Leucius (or, as it is printed, Seleucus), the author of the Acts already mentioned. In the letter of Innocent to Exsuperius (Mansi, iii.1041) he condemns documents bearing the name of Matthew, of James the Less, of Peter and Paul written by Leucius, of Andrew written by Xenocharis and Leonidas the philosophers, and of Thomas. It has been conjectured that in Xenocharis an adjective has been joined with a proper name, and that we have here a corruption of Charinus. In the Latin version of the apocryphal Descensus Christi ad inferos (Tischendorf, Evan. Apoc. p.369), two sons of the aged Simeon, named Leucius and Charinus, are represented as having died before our Lord, and as miraculously returning to bear witness to His triumphs in the under world. The writer clearly borrowed these names from the apocryphal Acts; did he there find warrant for regarding them as the names of distinct persons, or was Photius right in reporting both names to have been given to the same person? It would seem that only the Acts of John and perhaps of Peter named Leucius as their author: the necessities of the fiction would require the Acts of Andrew to be attested by a different witness, possibly Charinus, and it is conceivable that Photius may have combined the names merely from his judging, no doubt rightly, that all the Acts had a common author. Concerning the Acts of Paul in use among the Manicheans see LINUS and THECLA. Besides the authorities already cited, the Acts of Leucius are mentioned by Turribius, a Spanish bp. of the first half of the 5th cent., from whom we learn that they were used by the Priscillianists, and that the Acts of Thomas related a baptism, not in water but in oil, according to the Manichean fashion; and by Pseudo-Mellitus (Fabric. Cod. Apoc. N.T. ii.604), who acknowledges the truth of apostolic miracles related by Leucius, but argues against his doctrine of two principles. Pacian (Ep. i.2; Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii.1053) says, |Phryges nobiliores qui se animatos a Leucio mentiuntur, se institutos a Proculo gloriantur.| On this passage Zahn (see infra) mainly relies for dating the Acts of Leucius earlier than 160. But no other writer mentions a Montanist use of these Acts, and on this subject the authority of Pacian does not count for much. The context does not indicate that he had much personal knowledge of the sect, and his heretical notices appear to be derived from the Syntagma of Hippolytus, where we have no reason to think that he would have found any mention of Leucius. It is highly probable that Pacian, as well as others of his contemporaries, believed that Leucius was a real companion of St. John, and therefore no doubt earlier than Montanus; but that he had any means of real knowledge as to this we have no reason to believe. Besides those authorities which mention Leucius by name, others speak of apocryphal Acts, and probably refer to the same literature. Thus the Synopsis Scripturae ascribed to Athanasius (ii.154) speaks of books called the Travels (periodoi) of Peter, of John, and of Thomas; and by the second the Leucian story is probably intended. Eusebius (iii.25) tells of Acts of Andrew and of John; Epiphanius (Haer.47) states that the Encratites used Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas; that the Apostolici relied on Acts of Andrew and Thomas (ib.61); and that those whom he calls Origeniani used Acts of Andrew (ib.63). It is worth remarking that it is of the three apostles, Thomas, Andrew, and John, whose travels were written by Leucius, that Origen (ap. Eus. H. E. iii.1) can tell where the lot of their preaching had fallen, viz. India, Scythia, and Asia respectively.

The testimonies we have cited are not earlier than the 4th cent., and several of them speak of Leucius as a Manichean; but Grabe, Cave, Mill, Beausobre, Lardner, and others consider that he lived in the 2nd cent.; and, as he therefore could not have been a Manichean, was probably a Marcionite. Some have identified him with the Marcionite LUCANUS. But no Marcionite would have chosen for the heroes of his narrative the Jewish apostles, John, Thomas, and Andrew. Beausobre (Manichésme, i.350) gives six arguments for the early date of Leucius, not one of which is conclusive, all being vitiated by the tacit assumption that Leucius was a real person, and not, as we hold, merely the fictitious name of an imaginary disciple of St. John, whom the forger chose to make the narrator of the story.

Zahn (Acta Johannis, 1880) published some new fragments of Leucius, which increase our power of recognizing as Leucian things which different fathers have told without naming their authority. The Leucian character of these fragments is verified by various coincidences with the old. Names recur, e.g. Lycomedes. There is a story of a miracle performed on one Drusiana, who had submitted to die rather than have intercourse with her husband. This agrees with that of Maximilla and Egeas in revealing the violently Encratite principles of the author; cf. that told in the Acts of Thomas (Tischendorf, Acta Apoc. p.200). Zahn has argued the case for the early date of Leucius in a much more scientific way than previous supporters of the same thesis. He tries to shew that there are statements in earlier writers really derived from Leucius, though his name is not given. All Zahn's arguments do not seem to us conclusive, yet enough remains valid to lead us to regard the Leucian Acts as of the same age as the travels of Peter (which are the basis of the Clementines) and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. When a writer, who in one place quotes Leucius, elsewhere makes statements we know to be Leucian, they doubtless come from Leucius though he does not there name his authority; e.g. Epiphanius names Leucius only once, but we may safely count as derived from Leucius his reference to the manner of John's death (Haer.79, 5) and to John's virginity (ib.28, 7; 78, 10). Further, in the immediate context of the passage where Epiphanius names Leucius, he names other heretics of the apostolic age, and the presumption that he found these names in Leucius becomes almost a certainty when in one of the new Leucian fragments one of them, Cleobius, is found as that of a person in John's company. Other names in the same context are Claudius, Merinthus, and the Pauline Demas and Hermogenes; concerning whom see the Acts of Thecla and the so-called Dorotheus (Paschal Chron. ed. Dindorf, ii.124). The Augustinian and Hieronymian notices may be treated similarly. We can identify as Leucian several statements which are described as found |in ecclesiastica historia| or |in patrum traditionibus,| and hence probably others reported with the same formulae are from the same source.

We next enumerate some of the statements which may be characterized as Leucian, naming some of the early writers who have repeated them. (1) A Leucian fragment (Zahn, p.247) tells how John's virginity had been preserved by a threefold interposition of our Lord, breaking off the Apostle's designs each time that he attempted to marry. There is a clear reference to this story in a sermon ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nov. Pat. Bib. I. i.378), and from this source probably so many of the Fathers have derived their opinion of John's virginity, concerning which the canonical Scriptures say nothing (Ambros. de Inst. Virg. viii.50, vol. iii.324; Ambrosiaster on II. Cor. xi.2, vol. iv.2, 232; Hieron. in Isaiam, c.56, vol. iv. p.658; adv. Jovin. I.26, vol. ii.278; August. cont. Faust. xxx. vol. x.535, in Johan. c.21, vol. iv.1082; Epiph. Haer.58, 4). The Leucian Acts, in conformity with their strong Encratism, seem to have dwelt much on the apostle's virginity, describing this as the cause of our Lord's love to him, and as the reason for his many privileges, particularly the care of the virgin mother. In Pistis Sophia the name of the apostle John has usually the title ho parthenos appended, and we may therefore set down Pistis Sophia as post-Leucian, but uncertainty as to its date prevents us from drawing any further inference. The earliest mention of John's virginity is found in the epithet |spado| given to St. John by Tertullian (de Monog.17), whence Zahn infers that Tertullian must have used the Acts of Leucius. We think Zahn does not sufficiently allow for the probability in the case of one who is said to have lived so long, that a true tradition that he never married might have been preserved in the churches of Asia. Zahn contends that because Jerome uses the word |eunuchus| not |spado,| he is not copying Tertullian, but that both writers use a common source, viz. Leucius. But when the passage in Tertullian is read with the rest of the treatise, it appears more likely that the epithet is Tertullian's own. (2) Other evidence of Tertullian's acquaintance with Leucius is found in his story of St. John's having been cast into burning oil. Speaking of Rome he says, |Ubi apostolus Johannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur.| What was Tertullian's authority? Now, though none of the extant fragments of Leucius relate to this, yet that these Acts contained the story is probable from the following evidence. Jerome (vol. vii. p.655) commenting on Matt. xx.23 states on the authority of |ecclesiasticae historiae| that the apostle had been |missus in ferventis olei dolium, et inde ad suscipiendam coronam Christi athleta processerit, statimque relegatus in Pathmos insulam.| Now Abdias, whose work is notoriously based on Leucius (Hist. Ap. v.2, Fabric. Cod. Ps. N.T. ii.534), has |proconsul jussit eum velut rebellem in dolio ferventis olei mergi, qui statim ut conjectus in aeneo est, veluti athleta, unctus non adustus de vase exiit.| The second passage will be seen to be the original, Jerome's use of athleta receiving its explanation from Abdias. This conclusion is strengthened by another passage in Jerome (adv. Jovin. i.26, vol. ii.278), where, though he names Tertullian as his authority, he gives particulars not found in him, viz. the |dolium ferventis olei,| and that the apostle came out fresher and more vigorous than he had entered. We feel forced to believe that Jerome, who certainly used Leucius, found in it the statement about the boiling oil; and then there is a strong case for suspecting that this was also the authority of Tertullian. But though Tertullian names Rome as the scene of the miracle, it may be doubted whether this was so in the Greek Leucius. The mention by Abdias of a |proconsul| suggests Asia. Hippolytus, however, agrees with Tertullian in placing John at Rome (de Christo et Antic.36). Some of the earliest Fathers who try to reconcile Matt. xx.23 with the fact that John did not suffer martyrdom, do not mention this story of the baptism in oil (Origen, in loc. De la Rue, iii.719) A later story makes John miraculously |drink a cup| of poison with impunity.

(3) An acquaintance with Leucius by Clement of Alexandria has been inferred from the agreement of both in giving on John's authority a Docetic account of our Lord. The |traditions of Matthias| may have been Clement's authority; but that John is appealed to no doubt gives probability to the conjecture that Clement's source is the Acts which treat of St. John, a probability increased on an examination of the story told by Clement (Hypotyp. ap. Eus. H. E. vi.14) as to John's composition of Fourth Gospel at the request of his friends. In the Muratorian Fragment the request is urged by the apostle's fellow-bishops in Asia; he asks them to fast three days, begging for a revelation of God's will, and then it is revealed to Andrew that John is to write. The stories of Clement and the Muratorian writer are too like to be independent; yet it is not conceivable that one copied from the other; therefore they doubtless used a common authority, who was not Papias, else Eusebius, when he quotes the passage from Clement, would scarcely have failed to mention it. Now, several later writers (Jerome in pref. to Comm. on Matt., a writing pub. as St. Augustine's -- Mai, Nov. Pat. Bibl. I. i.379 -- Victorinus in his Scholia on the Apoc., Galland. iv.59; and others, see Zahn, p.198) tell the same story, agreeing, however, in additional particulars, which shew that they did not derive their knowledge from either the Muratorian writer or Clement. Thus they tell that the cause of the request that John should write was the spread of Ebionite heresy, which required that something should be added concerning the divinity of our Lord to what St. John's predecessors had told about His humanity; and that, in answer to their prayers, the apostle, filled with the Holy Ghost, burst into the prologue, |In the beginning was the Word.| Other verbal coincidences make it probable that this story was found in the Acts of Leucius, which Epiphanius tells us contained an account of John's resistance to the Ebionite heresy; and if so, Leucius is likely to have been Clement's authority also.

Combining the probabilities under the three heads enumerated, there seems reasonable ground for thinking that the Leucian Acts were 2nd cent., and known to Clement and Tertullian. Irenaeus, however, shews no sign of acquaintance with them, and Clement must have had some other source of Johannine traditions, his story of John and the robber being, as Zahn owns, not derived from Leucius; for no later writer who tells the story shews any sign of having had any source of information but Clement.

We cannot follow Zahn in combining the two statements of Theodoret (Haer. Fab. iii.4) that the Quartodecimans appealed to St. John's authority, and that they used apocryphal Acts, and thence inferring that Leucius represented St. John as sanctioning the Quartodeciman practice. If so, we think other traces of this Leucian statement would have remained. Theodoret would have found in Eusebius that the churches of Asia appealed to St. John as sanctioning their practice, and that may have been a true tradition.

A brief notice will suffice of other probable contents of the work of Leucius. He appears to have mentioned the exile to Patmos, and as resulting from a decree of the Roman emperor; but that the emperor was not named is likely from the variations of subsequent writers. Zahn refers to Leucius the story of St. John and the partridge, told by Cassianus, who elsewhere shews acquaintance with Leucius. A different story of a partridge is told in a non-Leucian fragment (Zahn, 190). The Leucian Acts very possibly contained an account of the Virgin's death. [MELLITUS.] But the most important of the remaining Leucian stories is that concerning St. John's painless death. Leucius appears to have given what purported to be the apostle's sermon and Eucharistic prayer on the last Sunday of his life. Then after breaking of bread -- there is no mention of wine -- the apostle commands Byrrhus (the name occurs in the Ignatian epistles as that of an Ephesine deacon) to follow him with two companions, bringing spades with them. In a friend's burying-place they dig a grave, in which the apostle laid himself down, and with joyful prayer blessed his disciples and resigned his soul to God. Later versions give other miraculous details; in particular that which Augustine mentions (in Johann. xxi. vol.3, p.819), that St. John lay in the grave not dead but sleeping, the dust heaped over him showing his breathing by its motions. For other Johannine stories, see PROCHORUS.

Besides the Acts Leucius has been credited with a quantity of other apocryphal literature. If, as we believe, he is only a fictitious personage, it is likely enough that the author of the romance wrote other like fictions, though our information is too scanty for us to identify his work. But there is no trustworthy evidence that he affixed the name of Leucius to any composition besides the Acts of Peter and John. >From the nature of the case an apostle's martyrdom must be related by one of the apostles' disciples, but such a one would not be regarded as a competent witness to the deeds of our Lord Himself, and accordingly apocryphal gospels are commonly ascribed to an apostle, and not to one of the second generation of Christians. The only apparent evidence for a connexion of the name of Leucius with apocryphal gospels is the mention of the name in the spurious letter of Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus, a witness unworthy of credit even if his testimony were more distinct. Probably the orthodox, finding in the Acts which bore the name of Leucius plain evidence that the writer was heretical in his doctrine of two principles, still accepted him as a real personage of the sub-apostolic age, and when they met with other apocryphal stories, the doctrine of which they had to reject as heretical while willing to accept the facts related as mainly true, Leucius seemed a probable person to whom to ascribe the authorship. [[365]LINUS.]

[G. S.]

Liberatus Diaconus
Liberatus (7) Diaconus, archdeacon of Carthage, a Latin writer on the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, an account of which he wrote entitled, Breviarium Causae Nestorianorum et
Eutychianorum, in which he records some circumstances of his life. He visited Rome in the pontificate of John II. on the affair of the Acoemetae order of monks (c.20). In 535 he was deputed to Rome, with the bps. Caius and Peter, by the council of Carthage, to consult John II. as to how conforming Arian bishops should be received. They arrived about the time of the pope's death (he was buried May 27, 535), and his successor Agapetus (consecrated June 3, 535) replied to the synod by the three envoys (Mansi, viii.849) Liberatus was an ardent defender of the Three Chapters, and undertook many journeys in that cause. On his return home he composed his Breviarum, so named as being an abridgment in 24 chapters of a history which, beginning with the ordination of Nestorius in 428, reached to the meeting of the fifth synod in 553. The work was probably written c.560. Liberatus intimates in his preface that he collected his materials from the Ecclesiastical History which had been recently translated from the Greek into Latin (as Garnier thinks, the Historia Tripartitia of Cassiodorus), from the Acts of the councils, and from episcopal letters. The Breviarum was ed. with copious notes and dissertations by Garnier in 1675 (8vo, Paris), and this ed. is reprinted by Migne (Patr. Lat. lxviii.969). Accounts of Liberatus will be found in Dupin (Eccl. Wr. t. i. p.558, ed.1722), Ceillier (xi.303), Cave (i.527), Fabric. (Bibl. Lat. t. iv. p.272, ed. Mansi, 1754).


Liberius, bp. of Rome
Liberius (4), ordained bp. of Rome May 22, 352 (Catalog. Liber.), as successor to Julius I. The assassination of Constans (a.d.350) and the subsequent defeat of Magnentius in 351 had left Constantius sole emperor. New charges against Athanasius were sent to the emperor and Julius the pope, and the latter dying before they reached him, the hearing of fell to his successor Liberius. These charges were that Athanasius had influenced Constans against Constantius, corresponded with Magnentius, used an unconsecrated church in Alexandria, and disregarded an imperial summons calling him to Rome (Athan. Apol. ad Constantium). They were considered, together with an encyclic of 75 Egyptian bishops in behalf of Athanasius, by a council under Liberius at Rome in 352, and on this occasion the first charge of compliance with heresy is alleged against Liberius. Among the fragments of Hilary (Fragm. IV.) there is a letter purporting to be addressed by Liberius to his |beloved brethren and fellow-bishops throughout the East,| declaring that he agrees and communicates with them; and that Athanasius, having been summoned to Rome and refused to come, is out of communion with himself and the Roman church. Bower (Hist. of the Popes), Tillemont (Vie de S. Athan. t. viii. art.64, note 68), and Milman (Lat. Christ. bk. i. c.2), accept this letter as genuine. Baronius, the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary, Hefele (Conciliengesch. bk. v. § 73) -- the last very positively -- reject it as an Arian forgery; their principal, if not only, ground being the improbability of his writing it.

The death of Magnentius in the autumn of 353 left Constantius entirely free to follow his own heretical bent, when Liberius certainly stood forth as a fearless champion of the cause under imperial disfavour. He sent Vincentius of Capua, with Marcellus, another bp. of Campania, to the emperor, requesting him to call a council at Aquileia to settle the points at issue. Constantius being himself at Arles, summoned one there, which was attended in behalf of Liberius by legates. The main object of the leaders of the council, in which Valens and Ursacius took a prominent part, was to extort from the legates a renunciation of communion with Athanasius. After a fruitless attempt to obtain from the dominant party a simultaneous condemnation of Arius, the legates at length complied. Paulinus of Treves refused, and was consequently banished (Sulp. Sev. l.2; Hilar. Libell. ad Const.; id. in Fragm.; Epp. Liber. ad Const. et Eus.). Liberius, on hearing the result, wrote to Hosius of Cordova much distressed by the weakness of his messenger Vincentius, and to Caecilianus, bp. of Spoletum (Hilar. Fragm. VI.).

Subsequently (a.d.354), most of the Western bishops having, under fear or pressure, expressed agreement with the East, Lucifer, bp. of Cagliari, being then in Rome, was, at his own suggestion, sent by Liberius to the emperor, to demand another council. The result was a council at Milan in the beginning of 355, attended by 300 Western bishops and but few Easterns. In spite of the bold remonstrances of Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer, Dionysius of Milan, and others, the condemnation of Athanasius was decreed, and required to be signed by all under pain of banishment. The pope's three legates were among the few who refused and were condemned to exile (see Sulp. Sev. l.2; Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos). Liberius at Rome still stood firm. He wrote to Eusebius (ap. Act. Eus.) congratulating him on his steadfastness, and sent an encyclic (ib. et Hilar. Fragm. VI.) to all the exiled confessors, encouraging them, and expressing his expectation of soon suffering like them. The emperor failed to turn him by threats or bribes. Finally Leontius, the prefect of Rome, was ordered to apprehend him and he was taken to Milan (see Athan. op. cit. c.35 seq.). Theodoret (l. ii. c.13) recounts in detail his interview with the emperor there. |I have sent for you,| said Constantius, |the bishop of my city, that you may repudiate the madness of Athanasius, whom the whole world has condemned.| Liberius continued to insist that the condemnation had not been that of a fair and free council, or in the presence of the accused, and that those who condemned him had been actuated by fear or regard to the emperor's gifts and favour. Liberius having warned the emperor against making use of bishops, whose time ought to be devoted to spiritual matters, for the avenging of his own enmities, the latter finally cut short the discussion by saying, |There is only one thing to be done. I will that you embrace the communion of the churches, and so return to Rome. Consult peace, then, and subscribe, that you may be restored to your see.| |I have already,| Liberius replied, |bidden farewell to the brethren at Rome; for I account observance of the ecclesiastical law of more importance than residence at Rome.| |I give you three days,| the emperor said, |to make up your mind: unless within that time you comply, you must be prepared to go where I may send you.| Liberius answered, |Three days or three months will make no difference with me: wherefore send me where you please.| Two days having been allowed him for consideration, he was banished to Beroea in Thrace (a.d.355). The emperor sent him, on his departure, 500 pieces of gold, which he refused, saying, |Go and tell him who sent me this gold to give it to his flatterers and players, who are always in want because of their insatiable cupidity, ever desiring riches and never satisfied. As for us, Christ, Who is in all things like unto the Father, supports us, and gives us all things needful.| To the empress, who sent him the like sum, he sent word that she might give it to the emperor, who would want it for his military expeditions; and that, if he needed it not, he might give it to Maxentius (the Arian bp. of Milan) and Epictetus, who would be glad of it. Eusebius the eunuch also offered him money, to whom he said, |Thou hast pillaged the churches of the whole world, and dost thou now bring alms to me as a condemned pauper? Depart first, and become thyself a Christian.| His banishment was followed by a general triumph of the Arian party. In Alexandria Athanasius was superseded by George of Cappadocia, the orthodox there cruelly persecuted, and Athanasius compelled eventually to take refuge among the hermits and coenobites of Egypt. In Gaul, in spite of the fearless protest of Hilary of Poictiers, the orthodox were persecuted and banished, and there also heresy triumphed. With regard to Rome, we find traces of two conflicting stories, one gathered from the practically unanimous testimony of contemporary or ancient writers of repute, some of whom have been our authorities so far -- viz. Athanasius (Hist. Asian. ad Monach.75), Jerome (Chron. in. ann. Abram. mccclx.), Rufinus (H. E. x.22), Socrates (H. E. ii.37), Sozomen (H. E. iv.8, 11), Theodoret (H. E. ii.14), together with Marcellinus and Faustus; two contemporary Luciferian presbyters of Rome, in the preface to their Libellus Precum, addressed to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, during the pontificate of Damasus, the successor of Liberius. The other, in conflict therewith, is in the Pontifical and the Acts of Martyrs. From the former authorities we learn that immediately after the exile of Liberius all the clergy, including the deacon FELIX (archdeacon according to Marcellinus and Faustus), swore before the people to accept no other bishop while Liberius lived. The populace, who appear throughout strongly on his side, debarred the Arians from the churches, so that the election of a successor, on which the emperor was determined, had to be made in the imperial palace. The deacon Felix was there chosen and consecrated, three of the emperor's eunuchs representing the people on the occasion, and three heretical bishops, Epictetus of Centumellae, Acacius of Caesarea, and Basilius of Ancyra being the consecrators. It seems probable that a considerable party among the clergy at least concurred in this consecration. Marcellinus and Faustus say that the clergy ordained him, while the people refused to take part; and Jerome states that after the intrusion of Felix by the Arians very many of the clerical order perjured themselves by supporting him. Felix appears to have been himself orthodox, no distinct charge of heresy being alleged by his accusers; only that of connivance with his own unlawful election by Arians in defiance of his oath, and of communicating with them. Two years after the exile of Liberius (a.d.357), Constantius went to Rome, and Theodoret tells us that the wives of the magistrates and nobles waited on the emperor, beseeching him to have pity on the city bereaved of its shepherd and exposed to the snares of wolves. Constantius was so far moved as to consent to the return of Liberius on condition of his presiding over the church jointly with Felix. When the emperor's order was read publicly in the circus, there burst forth the unanimous cry, |one God, one Christ, one bishop!| There appears to have been some delay before the actual return of Liberius, who was required to satisfy the emperor by renouncing orthodoxy and Athanasius. This he was now, in strange contrast to his former firmness, but too ready to do. It appears that bp. Fortunatian of Aquileia had been employed by the Eusebians to persuade him (Hieron. Catal. Script.97), and that Demophilus of Beroea had personally urged him to comply (Ep. Liber. ad Orient. Episc. ap. Hilar. Fragm. VI.). Hilary (Fragm. VI.) gives letters written by Liberius from Beroea at this time. One is to the Eastern bishops and presbyters; from which we give extracts, with Hilary's parenthetical comments: |I do not defend Athanasius: but because my predecessor Julius had received him, I was afraid of being accounted a prevaricator. Having learnt, however, that you had justly condemned him, I soon gave assent to your judgment, and sent a letter to that effect by bp. Fortunatian of Aquileia, to the emperor. Wherefore Athanasius being removed from the communion of us all (I will not even receive his letters), I say that I have peace and communion with you and with all the Eastern bishops. That you may be assured of my good faith in thus writing, know that my lord and brother Demophilus has deigned in his benevolence to expound to me the true Catholic faith which was treated, expounded, and received at Sirmium by many brethren and fellow-bishops of ours. (This is the Arian perfidy: -- This I have noted, not the apostate: -- the following are the words of Liberius.) This I have received with a willing mind (I say anathema to thee, Liberius, and thy companions), and in no respect contradict; I have given my assent, I follow and hold it. (Once more, and a third time, anathema to thee, prevaricator Liberius!) Seeing that you now perceive me to be in agreement with you in all things, I have thought it right to beseech your holinesses to deign by your common counsel and efforts to labour for my release from exile and my restoration to the see divinely entrusted to me.| Another is to Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, begging their good offices, and excusing his apparent delay in writing, as above, to the Oriental bishops. Before sending that letter he had already, he says, condemned Athanasius, as the whole presbytery of Rome could testify, to whom he seems to have previously sent letters intended for the emperor's eye. He concludes, |You should know, .most dear brethren, by this letter, written with a plain and simple mind, that I have peace with all of you, bishops of the Catholic church. And I desire you to make known to our brethren and fellow-bishops Epictetus and Auxentius that with them I have peace and ecclesiastical communion. Whoever may dissent from this our peace and concord, let him know that he is separated from our communion.| In giving this letter, Hilary again expresses his indignation in a note: |Anathema, I say to thee, prevaricator, together with the Arians.| A third is to Vincentius of Capua, the bishop whose defection at Milan he had once so much deplored. In this he announces that he had given up his contention for Athanasius, and had written to say so to the Oriental bishops, and requests Vincentius to assemble the bishops of Campania and get them to join in an address to the emperor, |that I may be delivered from my great sadness.| He concludes, |God keep thee safe, brother. We have peace with all the Eastern bishops, and I with you. I have absolved myself to God; see you to it: if you have the will to fail me in my banishment, God will be judge between me and you.|

No sufficient grounds exist for doubting the genuineness of the fragment of Hilary which contains these letters, or of the letters themselves. It is resolutely denied by Hefele (Conciliengeschichte, Bd. v. § 81) and by the Jesuit Stilting in the work of the Bollandists (Acts SS. Sept. t. vi. on Liberius), but their arguments are weak, resting chiefly on alleged historical difficulties and on the style of the letters. All the great Protestant critics accept them; and among the Roman Catholics Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, Fleury, Dupin, Ceillier, Montfaucon, Constant, and Möhler. Dr. Döllinger does the same. Dr. Newman also (Arians of the Fourth Century) quotes them without any note of suspicion. Baronius accepts the letters to the Eastern bishops and to Vincentius, but rejects that to Valens and Ursacius, though only on the ground of its implied statement that Athanasius had been excommunicated by the Roman church. A refutation of Hefele's arguments is contained in P. le Page Renouf's Condemnation of Pope Honorius (Longmans, 1868), from which an extract, bearing on the subject, is given in Appendix to the Eng. trans. of Hefele's work (Clark, Edin.1876). Even if the fragment of Hilary could be shewn to be spurious, the general fact of the fall of Liberius would remain indisputable, being attested by Athanasius (Hist. Arian.41; Apol. contr. Arian.89), Hilary (contra Const. Imp.11), Sozomen (iv.15), and Jerome (Chron. et de Vir. Illustr.97). It was never questioned till comparatively recent times, when a few papal partisans -- especially Stilting (loc. cit.), Franz Anton Zaccaria (Dissert. de Commentitio Liberii lapsu), Professor Palma (Praelect. Histor. Eccles. t. i. pt. ii. Romae, 1838) -- have taken up his defence, relying primarily on the silence of Theodoret, Socrates, and Sulpicius Severus on his fall. Others, as Hefele, endeavour to extenuate its extent and culpability.

In the letter to the Eastern bishops Liberius speaks of having already accepted the exposition of the faith agreed upon |by many brethren and fellow-bishops| at Sirmium. It is a little uncertain what confession is here meant. There had been two noted synods of Sirmium and both had issued expositions of doctrine. The first in 351, assembled by the Eusebians, adopted a confession which asserted against Photinus and Marcellus of Ancyra the pre-existent divinity of the Son before His human birth and, but for its omission of the term consubstantial, was not heretical. Hilary of Poictiers (de Syn.38 sqq.) allows it to be orthodox. Baronius and the Benedictine editors of Hilary (with whom agrees Dr. Döllinger in his Papst-fabeln des Mittelalters) maintain that this was the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea. The formula of the second Sirmian synod, assembled in 357 by Constantius at the instance of the Anomaeans, prohibited both the definitions, homoousios and homoiousios, as being beyond the language of Scripture, and declared the Father to be in honour, dignity, and majesty greater than the Son, and, by implication, that the Father alone may be defined as without beginning, invisible, immortal, impassible. The doctrine expressed was essentially that of the Homoeans, though the phrase |like-unto the Father,| from which they got their name, was not yet adopted. This may have been the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea. His credit is not much saved by supposing it to have been the former one, since his letters are sufficient evidence of his pliability. Whichever it was, his acceptance was not enough to satisfy the emperor, who, having gone from Rome to Sirmium, summoned him thither, where he was required to sign a new formula, apparently prepared for the occasion. This was, according to Sozomen, concocted from three sources: first, the creed of the old Antiochene council of 269, in which the term consubstantial, alleged to be used heretically so as to compromise the Son's Personality by Paul of Samosta, was condemned; secondly, one of the creeds issued by the Eusebian council at Antioch in 341, which omitted that term; and thirdly, the first Sirmian creed, above described. Sozomen adds that he signed also a condemnation of those who denied the Son to be like the Father according to substance and in all respects. When Liberius is said by some writers to have been summoned from Beroea to the third synod of Sirmium, and to have signed the third Sirmian confession, we must not understand those sometimes so called, viz. of May 359 (when a distinctly Homoean formula, prepared by bp. Mark of Arethusa, was subscribed), but the compilation above described.

Liberius was now allowed to return to Rome. Felix was compelled by the populace to retire from the city after tumults and bloodshed. Attempting afterwards to obtain a church beyond the Tiber, he was again expelled.

Two ways have been resorted to of excusing, in some degree, the compliance of Liberius. One, taken by Baronius and Hefele, is that the formulae he subscribed were capable of being understood in an orthodox sense, and so subscribed by him, though otherwise intended by the emperor: that |Liberius renounced the formula homoousios, not because he had fallen from orthodoxy, but because he had been made to believe that formula to be the cloak of Sabellianism and Photinism| (Hefele). Baronius, however, condemns him so far as to say that his envy of Felix and his longing for the adulation to which he had been used at Rome led to his weakness. The other way is that of Bellarmine, who acknowledges his external but denies his internal assent to heresy: a view which saves his infallibility at the expense of his morality. The facts remain that in his letters from Beroea he proclaimed his renunciation of Athanasius and his entire agreement and communion with the Easterns, and that at Sirmium he signed a confession drawn up by semi-Arians, which was intended to express rejection of the orthodoxy for which he had once contended. Athanasius, Sozomen, Hilary, and Jerome all allude to his temporary compliance with heresy in some form as a known and undoubted fact. Athanasius, however, unlike Hilary, speaks of it with noble tolerance. He says, |But they (i.e. certain great bishops] not only supported me with arguments, but also endured exile; among them being Liberius of Rome. For, if he did not endure the affliction of his exile to the end, nevertheless he remained in banishment for two years, knowing the conspiracy against me| (Apol. contra Arian.89). Again, |Moreover Liberius, having been banished, after two years gave way, and under fear of threatened death subscribed. But even this proves only their [i.e. the Arians'] violence, and his hatred of heresy; for he supported me as long as he had free choice| (Hist. Arian. ad Monach.41). Once in possession of his see and surrounded by his orthodox supporters, Liberius appears to have resumed his old position of resolute orthodoxy. In 359 were held the two councils at Ariminum in the West and Seleucia in the East, resulting in the almost universal acceptance for a time of the Homoean formula, which Constantius was now persuaded to force upon the church in the hope of reconciling disputants. This called forth the famous expression of Jerome (Dial. adv. Lucifer.19), |The whole world groaned, and wondered to find itself Arian.| Liberius was not present at Ariminum, nor is there any reason to suppose that he assented to the now dominant confession. Jerome's language is rhetorical, and, on the other hand, Theodoret (H. E. ii.22) gives a letter from a synod of Italian and Gallican bishops held at Rome under pope Damasus, stating that the Ariminian formula had the assent neither of the bp. of Rome, whose judgment was beyond all others to be expected, nor of Vincentius, nor of others besides.

The death of Constantius (a.d.361) and the accession of Julian the Apostate having left the orthodox free from direct persecution, Athanasius returned once more in triumph to Alexandria (a.d.362). In the council, famous for its reassertion of orthodoxy, then held at Alexandria, Liberius seems to have taken no prominent part. The glory of restoring orthodoxy and peace to the church is mainly due, not to the bp. of Rome, but to Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Hilary of Poictiers.

Liberius comes next under notice in the last year of his episcopate, and during the reign of Valentinian and Valens, who became, at the beginning of 364, emperors of the West and East respectively, Valentinian being a Catholic, Valens an extreme and persecuting Arian. His persecutions extending to the semi-Arians as well as to the orthodox, caused the former to incline to union with the latter and to the position that the difference between them was one rather of words than of doctrine. They came about this time to be called Macedonians, and now turned to the Western emperor and the Roman bishop for support in their distress, sending three bishops as a deputation to Valentinian and Liberius, with instructions to communicate with the church of Rome and to accept the term |consubstantial.| Valentinian was absent in Gaul, but Liberius received them (a.d.366). At first he rejected their overtures because of their implication in heresy. They replied that they had now repented, and had already acknowledged the Son to be in all things like unto the Father, and that this expression meant the same as |consubstantial.| He required a written confession of their faith. They gave him one, in which they referred to the letters brought by them from the Eastern bishops to him and the other Western bishops; anathematized Arius, the Sabellians, Patripassians, Marcionists, Photinians, Marcellianists, and the followers of Paul of Samosata; condemned the creed of Ariminum as entirely repugnant to the Nicene faith; and declared their entire assent to the Nicene creed. They concluded by saying that if any one had any charge against them, they were willing it should be heard before such orthodox bishops as Liberius might approve. Liberius now admitted them to communion, and dismissed them with letters, in the name of himself and the other Western bishops, to the bishops of the East who had sent the embassy.

Liberius died in the autumn of 366 (Marcell. and Faust.), having thus had a notable opportunity of atoning by his latest official act for his previous vacillation.

His extant writings are the letters referred to above. There is also a discourse of his given by St. Ambrose (de Virginibus, lib. iii. c. i) as having been delivered when Marcellina (the sister of Ambrose, to whom he addresses his treatise) made her profession of virginity. The discourse is interesting as containing the earliest known allusion to the keeping of the Christmas festival, while the way in which Ambrose introduces it shews the estimation in which Liberius was held, notwithstanding his temporary fall.

[J.B -- Y.]

Licentius (1)
Licentius (1). [[367]ROMANIANUS.]

Linus (1)
Linus (1), accounted the first bp. of Rome after the apostles, and identified by Irenaeus (iii.2) with the Linus from whom St. Paul sent greetings to Timothy (II. Tim. iv.21). For the question of the order of succession of the alleged earliest bishops of Rome, and. of the positions held by the persons named, see CLEMENS ROMANUS. As Linus there is no difference of opinion, since in all the lists he comes first. Eusebius (H. E. iii.13) assigns 12 years to his episcopate; the Liberian Catalogue 12 years, 4 months, and 12 days, from a.d.55 to 67; the Felician Catalogue 11 years, 3 months, and 12 days. These cannot be accepted as historical, nor can the statements of the last-named catalogue, that he died a martyr, and was buried on the Vatican beside the body of St. Peter on Sept.24. [J.B -- Y..]

Under the name of Linus are extant two tracts purporting to contain the account of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and of Paul. These were first printed in 1517 by Faber Stapulensis as an appendix to his Comm. on Saint Paul's Epistles. These Acts of Linus have so many features common with the Leucian Acts [[369]LEUCIUS] that the question arises whether we have not in Linus either a translation of a portion of the collection described by Photius or at least a work for which that collection supplied materials. Linus does not profess to give a complete account of the acts of the two apostles. He begins by briefly referring to (as if already known to his readers) the contest of St. Peter and Simon Magus, his imprisonments and other sufferings and labours, and then proceeds at once to the closing scenes. The stories of the martyrdom of the two apostles are quite distinct, there being no mention of Paul in the first nor of Peter in the second. The apostles' deaths are immediately brought about, not by Nero himself, but by his prefect Agrippa, a name, we may well believe, transferred by a chronological blunder from the reign of Augustus. This name, as well as some others mentioned by pseudo-Linus, occur also in the orthodox Acts of Peter and Paul published by Tischendorf and by Thilo. The alleged cause of Agrippa's animosity exhibits strongly the Encratite character common to Linus and the Leucian Acts. St. Peter, we are told, by his preaching of chastity had caused a number of matrons to leave the marriage bed of their husbands, who were thus infuriated against the apostle.

The intention to destroy Peter is revealed by MARCELLUS and other disciples, who pressingly entreat him to save himself by withdrawing from Rome. Among those who thus urge him are his jailors, Martinianus and Processus, who had already received baptism from him, and who represent that the plan to destroy Peter is entirely the prefect's own and has no sanction from the emperor, who seems to have forgotten all about the apostle. Then follows the well-known story of Domino quo vadis. St. Peter yields to his friends' entreaties, and consents to leave Rome, but at the gate he meets our Lord coming in, Who, on being asked whither He is going, replies, |To Rome, in order to be crucified again.| The apostle understands that in his person his Master is to be crucified, and returns to suffer. Linus tells of the arrest of Peter, and lays the scene of the crucifixion at the Naumachia near Nero's obelisk on the mountain. St. Peter requests to be crucified head downwards, desiring out of humility not to suffer in the same way as his Master. A further reason is given,, that in this way his disciples will be better able to hear his words spoken on the cross, and a mystical explanation is given of the inverted position which bears a very Gnostic character. An alleged saying of our Lord is quoted which strongly resembles a passage from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, cited by Julius Cassianus (Clem. Al. Strom. iii.13, p.553 see also Clem. Rom. ii.12), |Unless ye make the right as the left, the left as the right, the top as the bottom, and the front as the backward, ye shall not know the kingdom of God.| Linus relates how during Peter's crucifixion God, at the request of the apostle, opened the eyes of his sorrowing disciples, and so turned their grief into joy. For they saw the apostle standing upright at the top of his cross, crowned by angels with roses and lilies, and receiving from our Lord a book, out of which he reads to his disciples. This story has a good deal of affinity with that told by Leucius of a vision of our Lord during His crucifixion, seen by St. John on the Mount of Olives. The story of Peter's crucifixion head downwards was in the Acts known to Origen, who refers to it in his Comm. on Gen. (Eus. H. E. iii.1). Linus relates that Marcellus took Peter's body from the cross, bathed it in milk and wine, and embalmed it with precious spices; but the same night, as he was watching the grave, the apostle appeared to him, and bid him let the dead bury their dead and himself preach the kingdom of God.

The second book, which treats of St. Paul, relates the success of his preaching at Rome. The emperor's teacher, his hearer and close friend, when he cannot converse with him, corresponds with him by letter. The emperor's attention is called to the matter by a miracle worked by Paul on his favourite cupbearer, Patroclus, of whom a story is told exactly reproducing that told of Eutychus in Acts. Nero orders St. Paul's execution, Paul turns his face to the east, offers a prayer in Hebrew, blesses the brethren, binds his eyes with a veil lent by a Christian matron, Plautilla, and presents his neck to the executioner. From his trunk there flows a stream of milk -- a circumstance referred to by Ambrose and by Macarius in a work not later than c.400. A dazzling light makes the soldiers unable to find the veil; returning to the gate they find that Plautilla has already received it back from Paul, who has visited her accompanied by a band of white-robed angels. The same evening, the doors being shut, Paul appears to the emperor, foretells his impending doom, and terrifies him into ordering the release of the prisoners he had apprehended. The story ends with an account of the baptism of the three soldiers who had had charge of St. Paul, and been converted by him. After his death he directs them to go to his grave, where they find SS. Luke and Titus praying and receive baptism at their hands.

Lipsius infers, from the coincidences of the tolerably numerous N.T. citations in Linus with the Vulg., that our present Latin Linus must be later than Jerome; but he does not seem to have appreciated the conservative character of Jerome's revision or to have consulted the older versions. We have found no coincidence with the Vulg. which is not equally a coincidence with an older version; and in one case, |relinque mortuos sepelire mortuos suos,| the text agrees with the quotations of Ambrose, Jerome's translation being |dimitte.| We conjecture the compiler to have been a Manichean, but he is quite orthodox in his views as to the work of creation, the point on which Gnostic speculation was most apt to go astray.


Lucanus (1)
Lucanus (1), or Lucianus, Marcionite (Lucanus, Pseudo-Tert.18; Philast.46, and so probably their source, the Syntagma of Hippolytus; Tertull. de Resur. Carn.2; Loukanos, Orig. cont. Cels. ii.27; on the other hand, Loukianos Hippol. Ref. vii.37; Epiph. Haer.43). The former is the better attested form, and more likely to have been altered into the other. The Lucianites are reckoned as a sect distinct from the Marcionites, as well by Origen as by Hippolytus and his followers; but lack of authentic report of any important difference in doctrine leads us to believe that Lucanus did not separate from Marcion, but that after the latter's death Lucanus was a Marcionite teacher (probably at Rome), whose celebrity caused his followers to be known by his name rather than by that of the original founder of the sect. They may have been so called in contradistinction to the Marcionites of the school of Apelles, who approached more nearly to the orthodox. Origen's language (oimai) implies that he had no very intimate knowledge of the teaching of Lucanus; he will not speak positively as to whether Lucanus tampered with the Gospels. Epiphanius owns that, the sect being extinct in his time, he had difficulty in obtaining accurate information about it. Tertullian alone (u.s.) seems to have direct knowledge of the teaching of Lucanus. He accuses him of going beyond other heretics who merely denied the resurrection of the body, and of maintaining that not even the soul would rise, but some other thing, neither soul nor body. Neander (Ch. Hist. ii.189) interprets this to mean that Lucanus held that the psuche would perish and the pneuma alone be immortal; and possibly this may be so, though Tertullian's language would lead us to attribute to Lucanus a theory more peculiar to himself than this would be. Some commentators, taking a jest of Tertullian's too literally, have, without good reason, ascribed to Lucanus a doctrine of transmigration of souls of men into bodies of brutes. They have, however, the authority of Epiphanius (Haer.42, p.330) for regarding this doctrine as one likely to be held by a Marcionite. Lucanus has been conjectured to be the author of the apocryphal Acts which bore the name of LEUCIUS, and Lardner treats the identification as certain. Even, however, if it were certain that the Acts of Leucius were Marcionite, not Manichean, and as early as the 2nd cent., there is no ground for this identification but the similarity of name.


Lucianus, a famous satirist
Lucianus (8), a famous satirist, the wittiest, except Aristophanes, of all the extant writers of antiquity. Born (probably c.120) at Samosata on the Euphrates, the son of poor parents, he gradually betook himself to the composing and reciting of rhetorical exercises, which he did with continually increasing success as he journeyed westwards, visiting Greece, Italy, and Gaul, where his success reached the highest pitch. As in course of time his rhetorical vein exhausted itself, he betook himself, when about 40 years old, to that style of writing-dialogue on which his permanent fame has rested. About the same time he returned eastwards through Athens, and was at Olympia in a.d.165, when he saw the extraordinary
self-immolation by fire of the sophist Peregrinus. A little later he visited Paphlagonia, where he vehemently attacked, and made a bitter enemy of, the impostor Alexander of Abonoteichos. Of the extraordinary success of this man in deluding the weak and credulous minds of the rude people of those parts, and even the cultivated senators of Rome, Lucian has left us an animated account in the False Prophet (pseudomantis). Lucian once had an interview with him, and stooping down, instead of kissing his hand, as was the custom, bit it severely. Luckily he had a guard of two soldiers with him, sent by his friend the governor of Cappadocia (a proof of Lucian's importance at this time), or he would have fared badly at the hands of the attendants of Alexander. The latter pretended reconciliation, and subsequently lent Lucian a ship to return home in, but gave secret instructions to the crew to throw him overboard on the voyage. The master of the ship, however, repented, and Lucian was landed at Aegialos, and thence conveyed to Amastris in a ship belonging to the ambassadors of king Eupator. He endeavoured to get Alexander punished for this piece of treachery, but the latter's influence was too strong. Of his later years we know but little; he was, however, appointed by the emperor (probably Commodus) to a post of honour and emolument in Egypt.

We do not know the cause, manner, or time of his death. His writings, with all their brilliancy, do not convey the impression of a warm-hearted man; the Peregrinus is especially noticeable for the hard unconcern with which he describes both the self-sacrificing love of the Christians and the tragic self-sought death of the sophist. For cool common sense and determination to see everything in its naked reality, apart from the disturbing influences of hope, fear, enthusiasm, or superstition, he has never in any age been surpassed. His most essential characteristic could not be better described than in his own words, in the dialogue entitled Halieus, or the Fisherman: |I am a hater of imposture, jugglery, lies, and ostentation, and in short of all that rascally sort of men; and there are very many of them| (§ 20). Shortly after he says very candidly that there was some danger of his losing his power of esteem and love, for want of opportunities of exercising it; whereas opportunities in the contrary direction were ample and frequent.

For a complete analysis of his works see D. of G. and R. Biogr., s.v. Here it must suffice to indicate his relations to the religious influence of his time, and, above all, to Christianity.

The progress of experience, the leisure of research, had in his time shattered all real belief in the gods of ancient Greece and Rome in the minds of cultured men. But the vast crowd of deities, which the conflux of so many nations under the protecting shadow of Rome had gathered together, received, collectively and separately, a certain respect from the most incredulous. To the statesman, the gods of Rome were the highest symbol of the power of the imperial city; as such, he required for them external homage, to refuse which might be construed as rebellion against the state. Philosophers feared lest, if the particular acts of special deities were too rudely criticized, the reverence due to the gods in their remote and abstract sanctity might decay. Hence both classes favoured the sway of religious beliefs to which they had themselves ceased to adhere. The multitude was tossed about from religion to religion, from ceremony to ceremony, from rite to rite, in the vain hope that among so many supernatural powers some might lead men rightly to safety and happiness. The urgent need felt for guidance and the actual deficiency of sound guidance formed a combination favourable to the designs of greedy impostors. The Stoic philosophers, it is true, had formed a moral system capable of impressing on intellectual minds a remarkable self-restraint and large elements of virtue. But in hopefulness, the living sap which gives virtue its vitality, the Stoic was grievously deficient; and hence his philosophy was powerless with the multitude, and apt to degenerate into a hypocritical semblance even with its learned professors. There probably was never a time when so great a variety of hypocrisies and false beliefs prevailed among men. Such a world Lucian, with a cold, penetrating intellect, described with an audacity seldom paralleled. The ordinary method of his satire on the mythology of Greece and Rome consists in simply exhibiting the current legends as he finds them, stripped of the halo of awe and splendour with which they had habitually been surrounded, to the amused and critical reader. Sometimes his attack is more direct -- as in the Zeus Tragodos, Jupiter the Tragedian, where the plain insinuation is that the general profession of belief in the gods was simply occasioned by the odium and alarm which a contrary assertion would excite. Not so sweeping in extent, but still more unreserved in exposing the doings of the heathen deities, is the treatise peri thusion, on Sacrifices. The Zeus Tragodos shews Lucian's disbelief in any divine governance of the world; the treatise peri penthous, on Mourning, his disbelief in immortality.

But what was Lucian's attitude towards Christianity, which in his age was beginning to be known as no inconsiderable power in all parts of the Roman world? Two dialogues have to be considered in answering this question -- Alexandros e Psseudomantis, Alexander, or the False Prophet; and peri tes Peregrinou teleutes, Concerning the death of Peregrinus; for the Philopatris may be dismissed at once as pretty certainly no genuine work of its reputed author.

The most sympathetic allusion to the Christians by the genuine Lucian is in the |Alexander,| where the Christians are joined with the Epicureans (whom Lucian much admired) as persistent and indomitable opponents of that fine specimen of rascality. A much fuller and more interesting account of the Christians is contained in the other work named. This (together with the Philopatris) was placed on the Index Expurgatorius, and hence does not appear in the first and second Aldine editions of Lucian (Venice, 1503 and 1522). Yet all that it says about the early Christians is very highly to their credit, except in attributing to them a too great euetheia, a simplicity and guilelessness which rendered them liable to be deceived by worthless pretenders to sanctity. The passage contains one or two statements -- that about the new Socrates, and the eating forbidden food -- which it is difficult to think strictly accurate. Peregrinus Proteus was a cynic philosopher who flourished in the reign of the Antonines, and who, after a life of singularly perverted ambition, burnt himself publicly at the Olympian games, a.d.165. We quote the passage from Francklin's translation:

|About this time it was that he learned the wonderful wisdom of the Christians, being intimately acquainted with many of their priests and scribes. In a very short time he convinced them that they were all boys to him; became their prophet, their leader, grand president, and, in short, all in all to them. He explained and interpreted several of their books, and wrote some himself, insomuch that they looked upon him as their legislator and high priest, nay, almost worshipped him as a god. Their leader, whom they yet adore, was crucified in Palestine for introducing this new sect. Proteus was on this account cast into prison, and this very circumstance was the foundation of all the consequence and reputation which he afterwards gained, and of that glory for which he had always been so ambitious; for when he was in bonds the Christians, considering it as a calamity affecting the common cause, did everything in their power to release him, which when they found impracticable, they paid him all possible deference and respect; old women, widows, and orphans were continually crowding to him; some of the most principal of them even slept with him in the prison, having bribed the keepers for that purpose; there were costly suppers brought in to them; they read their sacred books together, and the noble Peregrinus (for so he was then called) was dignified by them with the title of the New Socrates. Several of the Christian deputies from the cities of Asia came to assist, to plead for, and comfort him. It is incredible with what alacrity these people support and defend the public cause -- they spare nothing, in short, to promote it. Peregrinus being made a prisoner on their account, they collected money for him, and he made a very pretty revenue of it. These poor men, it seems, had persuaded themselves that they should be immortal, and live for ever. They despised death, therefore, and offered up their lives a voluntary sacrifice, being taught by their lawgiver that they were all brethren, and that, quitting our Grecian gods, they must worship their own sophist, who was crucified, and live in obedience to his laws. In compliance with them they looked with contempt on all worldly treasures, and held everything in common -- a maxim which they had adopted without any reason or foundation. If any cunning impostor, therefore, who knew how to manage matters came amongst them, he soon grew rich by imposing on the credulity of these weak and foolish men. Peregrinus, however, was set at liberty by the governor of Syria, a man of learning and a lover of philosophy, who withal well knew the folly of the man, and that he would willingly have suffered death for the sake of that glory and reputation which he would have acquired by it. Thinking him, however, not worthy of so honourable an exit, he let him go. . . . Once more, however, he was obliged to fly his country. The Christians were again his resource, and, having entered into their service, he wanted for nothing. Thus he subsisted for some time; but at length, having done something contrary to their laws (I believe it was eating food forbidden amongst them), he was reduced to want, and forced to retract his donation to the city, and to ask for his estate again, and issued a process in the name of the emperor to recover it; but the city sent messages to him commanding him to remain where he was, and be satisfied.|

It would seem from the above that community of goods, in some degree or other, was practised among the early Christians to a later date than is generally supposed. Lucian confirms the general opinion as to the continual liability to persecution of the Christians of those ages. Moreover, though considering them weak and deluded people, he charges them with no imposture or falsehood, though he was very prone to bring such charges. In fact, did we know nothing of the early Christians but what he here records, his account would raise our interest in them in a very high degree; even their too great simplicity is not an unlovable trait.

There is an excellent trans. of Lucian by Wieland into German (Leipz.1788-1789, 6 vols.8vo), and one of great merit into Eng. by Dr. Francklin in 2 vols.4to (Lond.1780) and 4 vols.8vo (Lond.1781). For other edd. and trans. see D. of G. and R. Biogr.


Lucianus, priest of Antioch, martyr
Lucianus (12), priest of Antioch, martyr; born at Samosata c.240, educated at Edessa under a certain Macarius, a learned expounder of Holy Scripture (Suidas, s.v.). Lucianus went to Antioch, which held a high rank among the schools of the East and was then, owing to the controversies raised by Paulus of Samosata, the great centre of theological interest. There he was probably instructed by Malchion, who seems to have been the true founder of the celebrated Antiochene school of divines, of whom Lucian, Chrysostom, Diodorus, Theodoret, and Theodore of Mopsuestia were afterwards some of the most distinguished. During the controversies after the deposition of Paulus, Lucian seems to have fallen under suspicion. Some have thought that he cherished sentiments akin to those of Paulus himself, which were of a Sabellian character, while others think that in opposing Paulus he used expressions akin to Arianism (cf. Newman's Asians, p.7, and c. i. § 5). This latter view is supported by the creed presented at the council of Antioch, a.d.341, and purporting to be drawn up by St. Lucian, which is extremely anti-Sabellian. He was separated from the communion of the three immediate successors of Paulus -- Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus. During the episcopate of Cyrillus he was restored, and became with Dorotheus the head of the theological school, giving to it the tone of literal, as opposed to allegorical, exposition of Scripture which it retained till the time of Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Lucian produced, possibly with the help of Dorotheus, a revised version of the LXX, which was used, as Jerome tells us, in the churches of Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Antioch, and met with such universal acceptance that it received the name of the Vulgate (Vulgata, Koine), while copies of the LXX in general passed under the title of Lucianea (Westcott, Hist. of Canon, p.360). He also wrote some doctrinal treatises, and a commentary on Job. See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. v.3-17.

In the school of Lucian the leaders and supporters of the Arian heresy were trained. Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Leontius of Antioch, Eudoxius, Theognis of Nicaea, and Asterius appealed to him as their authority (but see ARIUS) and adopted from him the party designation of Collucianists (De Broglie, L'Eglise et l'Empire, i.375). Lucian became afterwards more conservative, and during Diocletian's persecution he encouraged the martyrs to suffer courageously, but escaped himself till Theotecnus was appointed governor of Antioch, when he was betrayed by the Sabellian party, seized and forwarded to Nicomedia to the emperor Maximinus, where, after delivering a speech in defence of the faith, he was starved for many days, tempted with meats offered to idols, and finally put to death in prison, Jan.7, 311 or 312. His body was buried at Drepana in Bithynia, where his relics were visited by Constantine, who freed the city from taxes and changed its name to Helenopolis. A fragment of the apology delivered by the martyr has been preserved by Rufinus and will be found in Routh, l.c. Dr. Westcott, l.c., accepts it as genuine.

As to whether Lucian the martyr and Biblical critic was the same person as Lucian the excommunicated heretic, Ceillier, Fleury, and De Broglie take one side, Dr. Newman the other. The former contend that neither Eusebius, Jerome, nor Chrysostom mentions his lapse in early life. But their notices are very brief, none of them are professed biographers, and we cannot depend much upon mere negative evidence. On the other hand we have the positive statements of Alexander, bp. of Alexandria (in Theod. H. E. i.3, and Philostorg. H. E. ii.14 and 15; see also Epiphan. Ancorat. c.33), which, together with the fact that the Arian party at Antioch sheltered themselves behind a creed said to have been |written in the hand of Lucian himself, who suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia| (Soz. H. E. iii.5), outweigh the improbability involved in the silence of the others. He may easily have been 30 years in church communion when he died, and with the 4th cent. Christians a martyrdom like his would more than atone for his early fall.

The creed of Lucian is in Hefele, Hist. of Councils, ii.77, Clark's ed.; cf. Soz. H. E iii.5, vi.12. Bp. Bull maintains its authenticity and orthodoxy (Def. of Nic. Creed, lib. iv. c. xiii. vi. § 5). Wright's Syriac. Mart. Eus viii.13, ix.6; Chrysost. Hom. in Lucian, in Migne, Patr. Gk. t.1. p.520; Gieseler, H. E. i.248; Neander, H. E. ii.498. Neander gives the numerous references to Lucian in St. Jerome's writings.


Luciferus I., bishhop of Calaris
Luciferus I., bp. of Calaris (Cagliari) ] in Sardinia, mentioned first in a letter of pope Liberius to Eusebius of Vercelli. Moved by great anxiety about the efforts then being made (a.d.354) to procure a condemnation of Athanasius by the Western bishops, Lucifer had come from Sardinia to Rome, and Liberius accepted his offer to go as an envoy to Constantius to ask him to summon a council The council met at Milan in 354. The Arian party, supported by the emperor, was strong in it, and a proposal to condemn Athanasius was immediately brought forward, but resisted by Lucifer with such vehemence that the first day's meeting broke up in, confusion and his opponents prevailed on the emperor to confine him in the palace. On the fourth day he was released. The subsequent discussions of the council were held in the palace and Constantius himself apparently took part in them. The proceedings were irregular and disorderly, and after some personal altercations the emperor sent Lucifer into exile His banishment lasted from 355 to 361, and was mostly spent at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, subject to the persecutions of the Arian bp. Eutychius. During his banishment, and probably at Eleutheropolis, his books or pamphlets on the controversy were written. Lucifer addresses Constantius in them with a remarkable vigour of denunciation. He evidently courted persecution, and even martyrdom. He compares the emperor to the worst kings that ever reigned, and regards him as more impious than Judas Iscariot. He sent his vehement invective by a special messenger to Constantius himself. Astonished at this audacity, the emperor ordered Florentius, an officer of his court, to send the book back to Lucifer to ask if it were really his. The intrepid bishop replied that it was and sent it back again. Constantius must be allowed to have shewn magnanimity in leaving these violent effusions unpunished. There may, however, have been some additional hardship in the removal of Lucifer from Palestine to the Thebaid, where he remained till the death of Constantius in 361. Hearing of his arrival in Egypt, Athanasius sent a letter from Alexandria, full of praise and
congratulations, asking him to let him see a copy of his work After receiving it, Athanasius thanked him in a still more laudatory letter, and calls him the Elias of the age.

Very soon after his accession, a.d.361, Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return to their sees. Lucifer and Eusebius of Vercelli were both in the Thebaid, and Eusebius pressed his friend to come with him to Alexandria, where a council was to be held under the presidency of Athanasius, to attempt to heal a schism at Antioch. Lucifer preferred to go straight to Antioch, sending two deacons to act for him at the council. Taking a hasty part in the affairs of the much-divided church at Antioch, where the Catholic party was divided into two sections, the followers of Meletius and the followers of Eustathius, Lucifer ordained Paulinus, the leader of the latter section, as bp. of the church. When Eusebius arrived at Antioch, bringing the synodal letter of the council and prepared to settle matters so as to give a triumph to neither party, he was distressed to find himself thus anticipated by the action of Lucifer. Unwilling to come into open collision with his friend, he retired immediately; Lucifer stayed, and declared that he would not hold communion with Eusebius or any who adopted the moderate policy of the Alexandrian council, which had determined that those bishops who had merely consented to Arianism under pressure should remain undisturbed.

After remaining some time at Antioch, Lucifer returned to Sardinia, and continued, it would seem, to occupy his see. Jerome (Chron.) states that he died in 371. To what extent he was an actual schismatic remains obscure. St. Ambrose remarks that |he had separated himself from our communion| (de Excessu Satyri, 1127, 47); and St. Augustine, |that he fell into the darkness of schism, having lost the light of charity| (Ep.185, note 47). But there is no mention of any separation except Lucifer's own repulsion of so many ecclesiastics; and Jerome, in his dialogue against the Luciferians (§ 20), calls him beatus and bonus pastor. (See a quotation from the Mém. de Trevoux in Ceillier, vol. iv. p.247.)

The substance of Lucifer's controversial pamphlets consists of appeals to Holy Scripture, and they contain a very large number of quotations from both Testaments. His writings are in Migne's Patr. Lat. t. xiii. His followers, if they ever formed a distinct organization, disappeared in a few years. Jerome's dialogue adv. Luciferianos purports to be the report of a discussion between an orthodox Christian and a Luciferian. The dialogue was written c.378, seven years after the death of Lucifer. Five or six years later an appeal was made to the emperor by the Luciferian presbyters.


Lucius (1) I
Lucius (1) I., bp. of Rome, after Cornelius, probably from June 25, 253, to Mar.5, 254, or thereabouts. These dates are arrived at by Lipsius (Chronol. der röm. Bischöfe) after elaborate examination of conflicting data.

The Decian persecution having been renewed by Gallus, and Cornelius having died in banishment at Centumcellae, Lucius, elected in his place at Rome, was himself almost immediately banished. His banishment was of very short duration; for Cyprian, in his one extant letter addressed to him, while alluding to his election as recent, congratulates him also on his return (Ep.61). A large number of Roman exiles for the faith appear from this letter to have returned to Rome with Lucius. In a letter to his successor Stephen (Ep.68), Cyprian calls both Lucius and Cornelius |blessed martyrs,| but probably uses the word to include confessors. For, though the Felician and later editions of the Liber Pontifcalis say that Lucius was beheaded for the faith, the earlier Liberian Catalogue mentions his death only; and it is in the Liberian Depositio Episcoporum, not Martyrum, that his name is found. With regard to the then burning question of the reception of the lapsi, on which the schism of Novatian had begun under his predecessor Cornelius, he continued the lenient view which Cornelius, in accord with St. Cyprian of Carthage, had maintained (Cypr. Ep.68). The Roman Martyrology, the Felician, and other editions of the Liber Pontificalis, rightly assign the cemetery of Callistus as his place of burial, and De Rossi has discovered, in the Papal crypt, fragments of a slab bearing the inscription LOUKIC. Six decreta, addressed to the churches of Gaul and Spain, are assigned to Lucius by the Pseudo-Isidore, and three others by Gratian -- all undoubtedly spurious.

[J.B -- Y.]

Lucius (11)
Lucius (11), the third Arian intruded into the see of Alexandria, an Alexandrian by birth, ordained presbyter by George. After the murder of that prelate Lucius seems to have been regarded as head of the Arians of Alexandria; but Socrates's statement (iii.4), that he was at that time ordained bishop, is corrected by Sozomen (vi.5) and earlier authorities. At the accession of Jovian, according to the Chronicon Acephalum, a Maffeian fragment, four leading Arian bishops put him forward to address the new emperor at Antioch, hoping to divert Jovian's favour from Athanasius. Records of these interviews are annexed to Athanasius's epistle to Jovian, and appear to have been read by Sozomen, who summarizes the complaints urged against the great hero of orthodoxy. The records are vivid and graphic. Lucius, Bernicianus, and other Arians presented themselves to Jovian at one of the city gates when he was riding into the country. He asked their business. They said they were |Christians from Alexandria,| and wanted a bishop. He answered, |I have ordered your former bishop, Athanasius, to be put in possession.| They rejoined that Athanasius had for years been under accusation and sentence of banishment. A soldier interrupted them by telling the emperor that they were the |refuse| of |that unhallowed George.| Jovian spurred his horse and rode away. Lucius does not reappear until 367, when, having been consecrated, says Tillemont (vi.582), |either at Antioch, or at some other place out of Egypt,| he attempted to possess himself of the bishopric, and entered Alexandria by night on Sept.23, and |remained in a small house,| next the precinct of the cathedral. In the morning he went to the house where his mother still lived; his presence excited general indignation, and the people beset the house. The prefect Latianus and the dux Trajanus sent officers to expel him, who reported that to do so publicly would imperil his life, whereupon Tatianus and Trajanus, with a large force, went to the house, and brought him out at 1 p.m. on Sept.24. On Sept.25 he was conducted out of Egypt (Chron. Praevium and Acephalum). Athanasius died on May 2, 373, being succeeded by Peter; but the prefect Palladius attacked the church, and Peter was either imprisoned or went into hiding. Euzoius, the old Arian bp. of Antioch, easily obtained from Valens an order to install Lucius. Accordingly Lucius appeared in Alexandria, escorted, as Peter said in his encyclical letter (Theod. iv.25), not by monks and clergy and laity, but by Euzoius, and the imperial treasurer Magnus, at the head of a large body of soldiers; while the pagan populace intimated their friendly feeling towards the Arian bishop by hailing him as one who did not worship the Son of God and who must have been sent to Alexandria by the favour of Serapis. Lucius surrounded himself with pagan guards, and caused some of the orthodox to be beaten, others to be imprisoned, exiled, or pillaged, for refusing his communion, these severities being actually carried out by Magnus and Palladius as representing the secular power. Gregory of Nazianzus calls him a second Arius, and lays to his charge the sacrileges and barbarities of the new Arian persecution (Orat. xxv.12, 13). He took an active part in the attack on the monks of Egypt; finding them immovably attached to the Nicene faith, he advised that their chief |abbats,| the two Macarii, should be banished to a little pagan island; but when the holy men converted its inhabitants, the Alexandrian people made a vehement demonstration against Lucius, and he sent the exiles back to their cells (Neale, Hist. Alex. i.203). When the Arian supremacy came to an end at the death of Valens, in 378, Lucius was finally ejected, and repaired to Constantinople, but the Arians of Alexandria still regarded him as their bishop (Socr. v.3). He lived for a time at Constantinople, and contributed to the Arian force which gave such trouble to Gregory of Nazianzus, during his residence in the capital as bishop of the few Catholics, from the beginning of 379. In Nov.380 the Arian bp. Demophilus was expelled, and Lucius went with him. Theodoret (iv.21) confounds Lucius with another Arian prelate of that name, also a persecutor, who usurped the see of Samosata (Tillem. vi.593).


Lucius (16)
Lucius (16) (Lleirwg, Lles, Lleufer-Mawr, Lleurwg), a mythical character represented as the first Christian king in Britain. By William of Malmesbury (Ant. Glast. ii.), and more especially by Geoffrey of Monmouth (Brit. Hist. iv. v.), besides later writers, Lucius is assigned a most important place in the Christianizing of Britain.

I. As represented by Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose narrative has made the deepest impression on popular history, Lucius was descended from Brutus, the founder and first king of Britain, and succeeded his father Coillus, son of Meirig or Marius. Like his father, he sought and secured the friendship of the Romans. The fame of the Christian miracles inspired him with such love for the true faith that he petitioned pope Eleutherus for teachers, and on the arrival of the two most holy doctors, Faganus and Duvanus, received baptism along with multitudes from all countries. When the missionaries had almost extinguished paganism in the island, they dedicated the heathen temples to the service of God, and filled them with congregations of Christians; they fully organized the church, making the flamens into bishops, and the archflamens into archbishops, and constituting 3 metropolitans with 28 suffragan bishops. Lucius largely endowed the church, and, rejoicing in the progress of the gospel, died at Gloucester (Malmesbury says at Glastonbury) a.d.156; without leaving any issue (Baron. Ann. a.d.183; Cressy, Church Hist. Brit. iii. iv. at great length and diffuseness; Lib. Landav. by Rees, 26, 65, 306, 309, but much shorter).

II. Parallel to the preceding, but without such minute details, is the legend in the Welsh Triads and genealogies, which are of very uncertain date and authority. Lleirwg, Lleurwg, or Lles, also named or surnamed Lleufer-Mawr (|the great luminary,| as all the names express the idea of brightness, corresponding to the Latin Lucius), son of Coel ap Cyllin ap Caradog or Caractacus ap Bran, was a Welsh chieftain of Gwent and Morganwg in the S. of Wales. Two of the Triads (Myv. Arch. ii.63, 68) state that he founded the church of Llandaff, which was the first in Britain, and endowed it with lands and privileges, giving the same also to all those persons who first embraced the gospel. The Welsh Triads would place him about the middle of the 2nd cent. (Rees, Welsh Saints, c.4; Williams, Emin. Welsh.276; Lib. Landav. by Rees, 309 n.; Lady Ch. Guest, Mabinogion, ii.130; Stephens, Lit. Cymr.69.)

III. In tracing the rise and growth of the legend there is comparatively little difficulty. Gildas makes no allusion to it. The earliest English author to notice it is Bede (Chron. a.d.180): |Lucius Britanniae rex, missâ ad Eleutherium Romae episcopum epistolâ, ut Christianus efficiatur, impetrat|; and again H. E. i. c.4.

The source from which Bede received the name of Lucius, and his connexion with Eleutherus, is shewn by Haddan and Stubbs (Counc. etc. i.25) to have been a later interpolated form of the Catalogus Pontificum Romanorum (ap. Boll. Acta SS.1 Apr. i. p. xxiii. Catalogi Veteres Antiquorum Pontificum). The original Catalogue, written shortly after 353, gives only the name and length of pontificate by the Roman consulships, but the interpolated copy (made c.530) adds to the Vita S. Eleutheri |Hic accepit epistolam a Lucio Britanniae Rege ut Christianus efficeretur per ejus mandatum.| Haddan and Stubbs conclude: |It would seem, therefore, that the bare story of the conversion of a British prince (temp. Eleutheri) originated in Rome during the 5th or 6th cents., almost 300 or more years after the date assigned to the story itself; that Bede in the 8th cent. introduced it into England, and that by the 9th cent. it had grown into the conversion of the whole of Britain; while the full-fledged fiction, connecting it specially with Wales and with Glastonbury, and entering into details, grew up between cents.9 and 12.|

Of the dates assigned to king Lucius there is an extreme variety, Ussher enumerating 23 from 137 to 190, and placing it in his own Ind. Chron. in 176, Nennius in 164, and Bede (Chron.) in 180, and again (H. E.) in 156. But the chronology is in hopeless confusion (see Haddan and Stubbs, i.1-26). Ussher (Brit. Eccl. Ant. cc. iii.-vi.) enters minutely into the legend of Lucius, accepting his existence as a fact, as most other authors have done. His festival is usually Dec.3.


IV. A final explanation of the Lucius legend was given by Dr. Harnack in 1904. in the Sitzungsberichte der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissensch. xxvi.-xxvii.. A recovered fragment of the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria suggested to him that the entry in the Liber Pontificalis was due to a confusion between Britannio and Britio. Dr. Harnack shews that the latter word almost undoubtedly refers to the birtha or castle of Edessa. Bede probably misread Britio in the Liber Pontificalis as Britannio, and referred the entry in consequence to Britain, whereas it relates to the conversion of Edessa in the time of Lucius Abgar IX. Harnack further shews that the original quotation was probably transferred from Julius Africanus to the Lib. Pont. See the review of the question in Eng. Hist. Rev. xxii. (1907) 769. Thus the mythic king Lucius of Britain finally disappears from history.


Lupus (2). [[372]GERMANUS (8).]

<<  Contents  >>

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy