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

A Dictionary Of Christian Biography And Literature by Henry Wace

Letter P

Pachomius, St
Pachomius (1), St., founder of the famous monasteries of Tabenna in Upper Egypt; one of the first to collect solitary ascetics together under a rule. Beyond a brief mention in Sozomen, who praises his gentleness and suavity (H. E. iii.14), the materials for his biography are of questionable authenticity. Athanasius, during his visit to Rome, made the name Pachomius familiar to the church there through Marcella and others, to whom he held up Pachomius and his Tabennensian monks as a bright example (Hieron. Ep.127, ad Principium). Rosweyd gives a narrative of his life in Latin, being a translation by Dionysius Exiguus, in the 6th cent., of a biography said to be written by a contemporary monk of Tabenna (Vit. Patr. in Pat. Lat. lxxiii.227). If we may trust this writer, Pachomius was born of wealthy pagan parents in Lower Egypt, before the council of Nicaea. He served in his youth under Constantine in the campaign against Maxentius, which placed Constantine alone on the throne. The kindness shewn by Christians to him and his comrades in distress led him to become a Christian. He attached himself to a hermit, celebrated for his sanctity and austerities. He and Palaemon supported themselves by weaving the shaggy tunics (cilicia), the favourite dress of Egyptian monks. He became a monk, and many prodigies are related of his power over demons, and in resisting the craving for sleep and food (Vit. cc.40, 44, 45, 47, 48, etc., ap. Rosw. V. P.). His reputation for holiness soon drew to him many who desired to embrace the monastic life, and without, apparently, collecting them into one monastery, he provided for their organization. The bishop of a neighbouring diocese sent for him to regulate the monks there. Pachomius seems also to have done some missionary work in his own neighbourhood. Athanasius, visiting Tabenna, was eagerly welcomed by Pachomius, who, in that zeal for orthodoxy which was a characteristic of monks generally, is said to have flung one of Origen's writings into the water, exclaiming that he would have cast it into the fire, but that it contained the name of God. He lived to a good old age (Niceph. H. E. ix.14). The Bollandists (Acta SS.14 Mai. iii.287) give the Acta of Pachomius by a nearly contemporary author, in a Latin trans. from the original Greek MSS., with notes and commentary by Papebroch. Pachomius died (Acta, § 77), aged 57, about the time Athanasius returned to his see under Constantius, i.e. a.d.349, as computed by Papebroch. Miraeus (Schol. to Gennad. Scr. Eccl. c.7) makes him flourish in 340; Trithemius in 390, under Valentinian and Theodosius. Sigebert (Chron. ann.405) puts his death in 405 at the age of 110. Portus Veneris, now Porto Venere, a small town on the N.W. coast of Italy, near Spezia, claims that his body rests there. Cf. Amélineau, Etude historique sur S. Pach. (Cairo, 1887); also Grützmacher, Pachomius und das Alteste Klosterleben (Freiburg, 1896).

[I.G.S.]

Palladius, bp. of Helenopolis
Palladius (7), bp. of Helenopolis, the trusted friend of Chrysostom, whose misfortunes he fully shared, was born c.367, perhaps in Galatia. He embraced an ascetic life in his 20th year, c.386. The ascetic career of Palladius can only be conjecturally traced from scattered notices in the Lausiac History (but see infra). He never remained long in one place, but sought the acquaintance of the leading solitaries and ascetics of his day to learn all that could be gathered of their manner of life and miraculous deeds. Tillemont thinks his earliest place of sojourn was with the abbat Elpidius of Cappadocia in the cavernous recesses of the mountains near Jericho (Hist. Laus. c.106), and that he, c.387, visited Bethlehem, where he received a very unfavourable impression of Jerome from the solitary Posidonius (ib. c.78), and passing thence to Jerusalem formed the acquaintance of Melania the elder and Rufinus, the latter of whom he highly commends (ib. c.5; c.118). In 388 Palladius paid his first visit to Alexandria (ib. c.1). Having visited several monasteries near Alexandria, and the famous Didymus, he retired (c.390) to the Nitrian desert, whence, after a year, he plunged still deeper into the district known, as the Cells, ta kellia, where he mostly remained for 9 years (ib.). Here, for 3 years, he enjoyed the intercourse of Macarius the younger and subsequently of Evagrius of Pontus. Palladius appears during this period to have traversed the whole of Upper Egypt as far as Tabenna and Syene, and to have visited all its leading solitaries. Ill-health led him to return to the purer air of Palestine, whence he soon passed to Bithynia, where he was called to the episcopate (ib. c.43). Palladius tells us neither when nor where he became bishop. If it is right to identify the author of the Lausiac History with the adherent of Chrysostom, his see was Helenopolis, formerly called Drepanum, in Bithynia. He was consecrated by Chrysostom, and the Origenistic opinions he was charged with having imbibed from Evagrius became a handle of accusation against his consecrator (Phot. Cod.59, p.57). This accusation of Origenism is brought against Palladius by Epiphanius (Ep. ad Joann. Jesus. Hieron., Op. i. Col.252, ed. Vallars.) and Jerome (Proem. in Dial. adv. Pelagianos), though Tillemont argues that this was another Palladius. Palladius was at the synod at Constantinople, May 400, at which Antoninus of Ephesus was accused by Eusebius, and he was one of three bishops deputed by Chrysostom to visit Asia and make a personal investigation into the charges (Pallad. Dial. pp.131-133). When Chrysostom, at the opening of 401, resolved to go to Ephesus himself, Palladius was one of the bishops to accompany him (ib. p.134).

Palladius was one of the first to suffer from the persecution which after 404 fell upon the adherents of Chrysostom. The magistrates having decreed that the house of any who harboured bishop, priest, or layman who communicated with Chrysostom should be confiscated, Palladius, with many other ecclesiastics, fled to Rome, arriving about the middle of 405, with a copy of the infamous decree which had driven him from Constantinople (ib. pp.26, 27). The refugees were hospitably entertained by one Pinianus and his wife and by some noble ladies of Rome, a kindness which Palladius gratefully mentions (Hist. Laus. c.121), and for which Chrysostom wrote letters of thanks from Cucusus. He was honourably received by pope Innocent, and his testimony gave the pope full knowledge of the transaction (Soz. H. E. viii.26). On the departure of the Italian deputation sent by Honorius to his brother Arcadius, requesting that the whole matter should be subjected to a general council, Palladius and the other refugees accompanied them (Pallad. Dial. p.31). On their arrival the whole party were forbidden to land at Constantinople. Palladius and his companions were shut up in separate chambers in the fortress of Athyre on the coast, and loaded with the utmost contumely, in the hope of breaking their spirit and compelling them to renounce communion with Chrysostom, and recognize Atticus (ib. p.32). All threats and violence proving vain, the bishops were banished to distant and opposite quarters of the empire; Palladius to Syene, on the extreme border of Egypt (ib. pp.194, 199). Tillemont considers that on the death of Theophilus in 412 Palladius was permitted to leave his place of exile, but not to return to his see. Between 412 and 420 Tillemont places his residence of four years near Antinoopolis in the Thebaid, of which district and its numerous ascetics the Hist. Laus. gives copious details (cc.96-100; cc.137, 138), as well as of the three years which the writer spent on the Mount of Olives with Innocent, the presbyter of the church there. During this time he may also have visited Mesopotamia, Syria, and the other portions of the eastern world which he speaks of having traversed. The peace of the church being re-established in 417, Palladius was perhaps restored to his see of Helenopolis. If so, he did not remain there long, for Socrates informs us that he was translated from that see to Aspuna in Galatia Prima (Socr. H. E. vii.36). He had, however, ceased to be bp. of Aspuna in 431, when Eusebius attended the council of Ephesus as bp. of that see (Labbe, Concil. iii.450). The Historic Lausiaca was composed c.420. It is now, however, generally considered (vide works by Preuschen and Butler, u. inf.) that the author of this History is not to be identified with the bp. of Helenopolis, his contemporary. The work takes its name from one Lausus or Lauson, chief chamberlain in the imperial household, at whose request it was written and to whom it is dedicated. The writer describes Lausus as a very excellent person, employing his power for the glory of God and the good of the church, and devoting his leisure to self-improvement and study. Though the writer is credulous, his work is an honest and, except as regards supposed miraculous acts, trustworthy account of the mode of life of the solitaries of that age, and a faithful picture of the tone of religious thought then prevalent. It preserves many historical and biographical details which later writers have borrowed; Sozomen takes many anecdotes without acknowledgment. Socrates refers to Palladius as a leading authority on the lives of the solitaries, but is wrong in calling him a monk and stating that he lived soon after the death of Valens (H. E. iv.23). The Historia Lausiaca was repeatedly printed in various Latin versions, from very early times, the first ed. appearing soon after the invention of printing. The latest and best authorities are E. Preuschen, Palladius and Rufinus (Giessen, 1897); C. Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius (vol. i. critical intro. Camb.1898; vol. ii. Gk. text with intro. and notes, 1904) in Texts and Studies; see also C. H. Turner, The Lausiac Hist. of Pallad. in Jnl. of Theol. Stud.1905, vi. p.321.

The question whether the Dialogue with Theodore the Deacon is correctly assigned to Palladius of Helenopolis has been much debated. It is essentially a literary composition, the characters and framework being alike fictitious. It was undoubtedly written by one who took an active part in the events he describes. No one corresponds so closely in all respects to the ideal presented by the narration as Palladius of Helenopolis, nor is there any really weighty objection to his authorship. For the closing days of Chrysostom's episcopate it is, with all its faults, simply priceless. Tillem. Mém. Eccl. t. xi. pp.500-530, pp.638-646; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p.376; Du Pin, Auteurs eccl. t. iii. p.296; Cotelerius, Eccl. Graec. Monum. t. iii. p.563.

[E.V.]

Palladias, bishop of Ireland
Palladius (11), July 6, the first bp. sent to Ireland and the immediate predecessor of St. Patrick. Facts known about him are few, though legends are numerous. His birthplace is placed by some in England, by others in Gaul or Italy; some even make him a Greek (see Ussher, Eccles. Britann. Antiq. t. vi. c. xvi. of Elrington's ed.). His ecclesiastical position has also been disputed. He seems to have been an influential man in the earlier part of the 5th cent., as Prosper of Aquitaine, a contemporary, mentions him twice, affording the only real record. of his life which we possess. Under 429 Prosper writes in his Chronicle: |By the instrumentality of the deacon Palladius, pope Celestinus sends Germanus, bp. of Auxerre, in his own stead, to displace the heretics and direct the Britons to the Catholic faith.| Prosper's words under 431 are, |Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius et primus Episcopus mittitur.| This mission of Palladius is referred to in the Book of Armagh, where Tirechan (Analect. Boll. t. ii. p.67), or more probably some writer towards a.d.900, calls him Patricius as his second name. Rev. J. F. Shearman, in his Loco Patriciana, p.25 (Dubl.1879), has discussed with vast resources of legendary lore the different localities in Wicklow and Kildare where Palladius is said to have preached and built churches, but his authorities have little historical value, being specially the Four Masters and Jocelyn. His work contains, however, much interesting matter for students of Irish ecclesiastical history and antiquities, its accuracy being guaranteed by his extensive knowledge of the localities.

[G.T.S.]

Pammachius, a Roman senator
Pammachius, a Roman senator of the Furian family (Hieron. Ep. lxvi.6, ed. Vall.), cousin to Marcella (ib. xlix.4), and said by Palladius (Hist. Laus. c.122) to have been related to Melania. He was a friend of Jerome, Paulinus, and afterwards Augustine. He was a fellow-student of Jerome at Rome (Ep. xlviii.1), but apparently not specially connected with church affairs in early life. During Jerome's stay in Rome in 382-385 they probably met, since in 385 Pammachius married Paulina, the daughter of Paula who went with Jerome to Palestine. Pammachius was learned, able, and eloquent (Ep. lxxvii.1; xlix.3). After his marriage, he seems to have occupied himself much with scriptural studies and church life. The controversy relating to Jovinian interested him, and he is thought to have been one of those who procured the condemnation of Jovinian from pope Siricius (Tillem. x.568). But Jerome's books against Jovinian (pub. in 392) appeared to Pammachius to be too violent. He bought up the copies and wrote to Jerome asking him to moderate his language. Jerome refused, but thanked Pammachius for his interest, hailed him as a well-wisher and defender, and promised to keep him informed of his future writings (Epp. xlviii., xlix.). Thenceforth their intercourse was constant.

Pammachius is said by Jerome (xlix.4) to have been designated for the sacerdotium at this time by the whole city of Rome and the pontiff. But he was never ordained. His growing convictions and those of his wife, the fact that all his children died at birth and that his wife died in childbirth (a.d.397, see Hieron. Ep. lxvi., addressed to him 2 years later), led him to take monastic vows. He, however, still appeared among the senators in their purple in the dark dress of a monk (ib. lxvi.6). He showed his change of life by munificent gifts and a great entertainment to the poor (Paulinus, Ep. xiii.11; see also Pall. Hist. Laus.122). With Fabiola he erected a hospital at Portus, which became world-famous (Hieron. Ep. lxvi.11).

At the commencement of the Origenistic controversy, Jerome wrote (in 35) to Pammachius his letter de Opt. Genere Interpretandi (Ep. lvii. ed. Vall.). On Rufinus coming to Rome Pammachius, with Oceanus and Marcella, watched his actions in Jerome's interest, and on his publication of a translation of Origen's Peri Archon wrote to Jerome to request a full translation of the work (Epp. lxxxiii., lxxxiv). These friends also procured the condemnation of Origenism by pope Anastasius in 401, and to them Jerome's apology against Rufinus was addressed, and the book cont. Joannem Hierosol. During the Donatist schism in Africa Pammachius, who had property in that province, wrote to the people of Numidia, where the schism had begun, exhorting them to return to the unity of the church. This letter brought him into relations with Augustine, who wrote (in 401) to him (Ep. lviii.) congratulating him on an action likely to help in healing the schism, and desiring him to read the letter to his brother senators, that they might do likewise. After this we hear of Pammachius only in connexion with the Bible-work of Jerome, who dedicated to him his commentaries on the Minor Prophets (406) and Daniel (407), and at his request undertook the commentaries on Is. and Ezek. (prefaces to Comm. on Am. Dan. Is. and Ezek.). Before the latter was finished, Pammachius had died in the siege of Rome by Alaric, a.d.409.

[W.H.F.]

Pamphilus, presbyter of Caesarea
Pamphilus (1), presbyter of Caesarea, the intimate friend (Hieron. de Script. Eccl.75) and literary guide of Eusebius the church historian, who adopted his name as a surname, calling himself Eusebios Pamphilou. Eusebius composed his friend's biography in three books. The work is entirely lost, and our only knowledge of this chief among the Biblical scholars of his age is derived from a few scattered notices in the existing writings of Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. Pamphilus was a native of Phoenicia, and, if we accept the doubtful authority of Metaphrastes, born at Berytus, of a wealthy and honourable family. Having received his earlier education in his native city, he passed to Alexandria, where he devoted himself to theological studies under Pierius, the head of its catechetical school (Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii.430; Phot. Cod.118). Pamphilus afterwards settled at Caesarea, of which church he became a presbyter, probably during the episcopate of Agapius. Here he commenced the work of his life, hunting for books illustrative of Holy Scripture from all parts of the world. The library thus formed was subsequently repaired, after its injuries during the persecution of Diocletian, by Acacius and Euzoïus, the successors of Eusebius in the see of Caesarea (Hieron. Ep. xxxiv. vol. i. p.155). Eusebius had catalogued it (H. E. vi.32). It was especially rich in codices of the Scriptures, many transcribed or corrected by Pamphilus's own hand. In this Eusebius was a zealous coadjutor (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c.81). Jerome speaks of Palestinian manuscripts of the LXX current in the Syrian church, which, having been carefully prepared by Origen, were published by the two friends (Hieron. Praef. in Paralip.; adv. Rufin. ii.27, t. ii. p.522). Among other priceless literary treasures now lost was a copy of the so-called Hebrew text of the Gospel of St. Matthew (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c.3) and the Tetrapla and Hexapla of Origen in the original copy (Hieron. in Tit. iii.9, t. vii. p.734). In the catechetical school of Alexandria Pamphilus had conceived a most ardent admiration for Origen, with whose works he made it his special object to enrich his library, copying the greater part himself (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c.75). Jerome gloried in the possession of Origen's commentaries on the Minor Prophets in 25 volumes in Pamphilus's autograph. Pamphilus proved his affection for the memory and fame of Origen by devoting the last two years of his life to composing, in prison, with the assistance of Eusebius, an Apology, or Defence of Origen, addressed to the |Confessors condemned to the mines in Palestine.| Five books were completed before his death, the sixth being added by Eusebius (Photius, Cod.118). Photius gives a brief summary of the work, of which we have bk. i. alone in the inaccurate Latin version of Rufinus (Routh, Rel. Sac. iv. pp.339, 392). What Pamphilus knew and had acquired he regarded as the common property of those who desired to share it. Eusebius describes him as ever ready to help all in need, either in the matters of the body, the mind, or the soul. The copies of the Scriptures he caused to be made by his students he distributed gratuitously, while he liberally supplied the temporal wants of those in distress (Eus. de Martyr. Palaest. c.11; Hieron. adv. Rufin. i.9, t. ii. p.465).

In 307 Pamphilus was committed to prison by Urbanus, the persecuting governor of the city, and for two years was closely confined, cheered by the companionship of his second self, Eusebius (Hieron. ad Pammach. et Ocean. Ep.84). Pamphilus sealed his life-long confession of his Master with his blood -- |the centre of a brave company, among whom he shone out as the sun among the stars| -- in 309, when Firmilianus had succeeded Urbanus as governor. The library he collected was destroyed when Caesarea was taken by the Arabs in the 7th cent.

[E.V.]

Pancratius, martyr
Pancratius (1), (St. Pancras), martyr at Rome on the Via Aurelia, a.d.304; a Phrygian by birth, but baptized at Rome by the pope himself. He suffered when only 14 years of age with his uncle Dionysius. His martyrdom was very celebrated in the early ages. His church still gives a title to a cardinal, and to a well-known parish church in London. Gregory of Tours (de Glor. Martt. i.39) tells us that his tomb outside the walls of Rome was so sacred that the devil at once seized those who swore falsely before it. Gregory the Great mentions the martyr in his Epp. (iv.18 and vi.49), and in Homily (xxvii.) on St. John (Ceill. iii.29; Tillem. Mém. v.260; AA. SS. Boll. Mai. ii.17; Ruinart. AA. Sinc. p.407; Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuard.).

[G.T.S.]

Pantaenus, of Alexandria
Pantaenus, chief of the catechetical school of Alexandria, in the latter part of the 2nd cent. and perhaps the early years of the 3rd. Of his previous life little is known with certainty. We are not informed whether he was originally a Christian or became one by conversion. Our authorities agree, however, that he was trained in the Greek philosophy, and owed to this training much of his eminence as a teacher. Origen, in a passage preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi.19), names him as an example -- the earliest, apparently, that he can adduce -- of a Christian doctor who availed himself of his heathen learning. Eusebius tells us (ib. v.10) that in his zeal for the faith he undertook the work of an evangelist in the East, and penetrated as far as India; where he found that St. Bartholomew had already preached the Word and had left there a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew characters, which was still treasured by the Christians there. Jerome (de Vir. Ill.36) adds (but probably without authority) that Pantaenus brought this to Alexandria. He also represents that the people of India had heard his fame as a teacher and sent a deputation to solicit this mission. This is by no means incredible, considering the celebrity of Alexandria as a seat of learning. But Jerome raises a difficulty when he names Demetrius as the bishop by whom he was sent. For Eusebius places the accession of Demetrius to the patriarchate in the 10th year of Commodus (H. E. v.22; cf. Chron.), a.d.189; while he represents Pantaenus as head of the Alexandrian school in his 1st year (H. E. v.9, 10) and distinctly conveys that this appointment was after his return from his Indian mission.

There is a like conflict of authority concerning the relation of Pantaenus to Clement of Alexandria. Eusebius (v.11) unhesitatingly assumes that Pantaenus is the unnamed master whom Clement in his Stromateis (i. p.322, Potter) places above all the great men by whose teaching he was profited, |last met, but first in power,| in whom he |found rest.| To this authority we may add that of Pamphilus, who was principal author of their joint Apology for Origen; for Photius (Bibl. cxviii.) states on the authority of that work (now lost) that Clement |was the hearer of Pantaenus and his successor in the school.| This information Pamphilus no doubt had from his master Pierius, himself head of the same school, a follower of Origen and probably less than 50 years his junior. Maximus the Confessor (Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.) styles Pantaenus |the master| (kathegeten) of Clement. But Philip of Side (c.427) in his Hist. Christiana, as we learn from a fragment first pub. by Dodwell, made |Clement the disciple of Athenagoras, and Pantaenus of Clement.| We unhesitatingly prefer the witness of Eusebius. Dodwell's attempts to discredit it are ineffectual. This contradiction, however, and the difficulty as to the chronology of Pantaenus, may be solved, or at least accounted for, if we suppose that Pantaenus was head of the school both before and after his sojourn in India, and Clement in his absence. Origen afterwards thus quitted and resumed the same office. If Pantaenus was the senior, Clement was the more brilliant; and at the close of the 2nd cent. it may well have seemed a question which was master and which disciple. This hypothesis agrees with the probable date of Clement's headship; and likewise with the note in the Chronicon of Eusebius, under year of Pertinax, or 2nd of Severus (c.193), where we read that Clement was then in Alexandria, |a most excellent teacher (didaskalos) and shining light (dielampe) of Christian philosophy,| and Pantaenus |was distinguished as an expositor of the Word of God.| Thus also Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem (ap. Eus. H. E. vi.14), in a letter to Origen, couples the names of Pantaenus and Clement (placing, however, Pantaenus first), as |fathers,| and speaks of both as recently deceased. This letter shows, further, that this Alexander and the illustrious Origen himself were almost certainly pupils of Pantaenus.

We do not know the date of his death, but the Chronicon (vid. sup.) confirms Jerome in prolonging his activity into the reign of Severus (193-211), and not improbably, as Jerome states, he lived into the following reign -- a statement repeated in the (later) Roman Martyrology. Photius is thus wrong in believing that Pantaenus was a hearer not only |of those who had seen the apostles| (which he may well have been), but also |of some of the apostles themselves.| A man alive after 193 and not the senior of Clement by more than a generation could not possibly have been born so early as to have been a hearer even of St. John. Photius was probably misled by a too literal construction of Clement's statement (Strom. u.s.) -- that his teachers |had received the true tradition of the blessed doctrine straight from the holy apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul.|

Eusebius tells us that Pantaenus |interpreted the treasures of the divine dogmas|; Jerome, that he left |many commentaries on the Scriptures.| Both however indicate that the church owed more to his spoken utterances than to his writings. The two extant fragments (see Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p.378) appear to be relics of his oral teaching. One bears the character of a verbal reply to a question; it is preserved by Maximus the Confessor (Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.), who, in illustration of the teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite concerning the divine will, tells us that Pantaenus when asked by certain philosophers, |in what manner Christians suppose God to know things that are?| replied, |Neither by sense things sensible, nor by intellect things intelligible. For it is not possible that He Who is above the things that are, should apprehend the things that are according to the things that are. But we say that He knows the things that are, as acts of His own will (hos idia thelemata); and we give good reason for so saying; for if by act of His will He hath made all things (which reason will not gainsay), and if it is ever both pious and right to say that God knows His own will, and He of His will hath made each thing that hath come to be; therefore God knows the things that are as acts of His own will, inasmuch as He of His will hath made the things that are.| The other, contained in the Eclogae e Propheticis appended to the works of Clement, is introduced by |Our Pantaenus used to say| (elege), and lays down as a principle in interpreting prophecy that it |for the most part utters its sayings indefinitely [as to time], using the present sometimes for the future and sometimes for the past.| Anastasius of Sinai (7th cent.), in his Contemplations on the Hexaemeron (quoted by Routh, i. p.15), twice cites Pantaenus as one authority for an interpretation according to which Christ and his church are foreshewn in the history of the creation of Paradise (I. p.860; VII. cont. p.893 in Bibl. Max. PP. t. ix. ed. Lyons, 1677), the true inference from these references apparently being that Pantaenus led the way in that method of spiritual or mystical interpretation of O.T., usually associated with his more famous followers, Clement and Origen.

Anastasius describes him as |priest of the church of the Alexandrians (tes Alexandreon hiereus)|; which is noteworthy in the absence of all direct information concerning the time and place, or even the fact, of his ordination. That he was a priest may be inferred -- not indeed from his headship of a school, for Origen was a layman, but -- from the fact that he was sent by his bishop to evangelize India.

Besides authors quoted, see Baronius, Ann., s.a.183; Cave, Primitive Fathers, p.185 (1677); Hist. Lit. t. i. p.51 (1688); Du Pin, Auteurs ecclés. t. i. pt. i. p.184; Lardner, Credibility, c. xxi.; Le Quien, Oriens Chr. t. ii. coll.382, 391; Tillem. Mém. t. iii. p.170.

[J.GW.]

Papa
Papa. [[465]NESTORIAN CHURCH.]

Paphnutius, bishop in Upper Thebias
Paphnutius (2), bp. in Upper Thebias, who suffered mutilation and banishment for the faith (Socr. H. E. i.11; Theod. H. E. i.7). At the council of Nicaea a.d.325, he was much honoured as a confessor, specially by Constantine (Socr. u.s.), and earnestly opposed the enforcement of the law of clerical celibacy, on the ground of both principle and expediency, and prevailed (ib.). He closely adhered to the cause of St. Athanasius, and attended him at the council of Tyre, a.d.335. Rufinus (H. E. i.17), followed by Sozomen (H. E. ii.25), tells a dramatic story of his there reproaching Maximus of Jerusalem for being in Arian company and explaining to him the exact position of affairs. Fleury, H. E. xv. c.26; Ceill. Aut. sacr. iii.420, 450; Boll. Acta SS. Sept.11, iii.778.

[J.G.]

Paphnutius, surnamed Bubalus
Paphnutius (5) (Pafnutius, Pynuphius, surnamed Bubalus, and Cephala), an anchoret and priest in the Scetic desert in Egypt. Cassian's words (Coll. iv. c.1) regarding his promotion of abbat Daniel to the diaconate and priesthood have been held to prove that a presbyter had the power of ordaining, but Bingham (Ant. bk. ii.3, 7) will not admit that Cassian is to be so understood. When Cassian visited him in 395, he was 90 years old, but hale and active (Coll. iii. c.1). He seems to have fled twice from the Scetic into Syria for greater solitude and perfection (Cass. de Coen. Inst. iv. cc.30, 31), and with some others had in 373 already found refuge at Diocaesarea in Palestine (Tillem. vi.250, 251, ed.1732). In the
anthropomorphic controversy between Theophilus bp. of Alexandria and the monks of the Egyptian desert, Paphnutius took the side of the bishop and orthodoxy (Cass. Coll. x. c.2) ; his attempt to convert the aged Serapion and his failure, till Photinus came, is very curious (ib.3).

[J.G.]

Papias, bp. of Hierapolis
Papias (1), bp. of Hierapolis in Phrygia (Eus. H. E. iii.36) in the first half of 2nd cent. Lightfoot says (Coloss. p.48), |Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis, not only in inscriptions (Boeckh, 3930, 3912 A, add.), but even on coins (Mionnet, iv. p.301). This is explained by the fact that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh, 3912 A, Papia Dii soteri).| The date of Papias used to be regarded as determined by a notice in the Paschal Chronicle, which was thought to record his martyrdom at Pergamus under a.d.163. But we have no ground for asserting that Papias lived so late as 163, and we shall see reason for at least placing his literary activity considerably earlier in the century.

His name is famous as the writer of a treatise in five books called Expositions of Oracles of the Lord (Logion Kuriakon exegeseis), which title we shall discuss presently. The object of the book seems to have been to throw light on the Gospel history, especially by the help of oral traditions which Papias had collected from those who had met members of the apostolic circle. That Papias lived when it was still possible to meet such persons has given great importance to his testimony, though only some very few fragments of his work remain. Every word of these fragments has been rigidly scrutinized, and, what is less reasonable where so little is known, arguments have been built on the silence of Papias about sundry matters which it is supposed he ought to have mentioned and assumed that he did not. We give at length the first and most important of the fragments, a portion of the preface preserved by Eusebius (iii.39), from which we can infer the object of the work and the resources which Papias claimed to have available. |And I will not scruple also to give for thee a place along with my interpretations to whatsoever at any time I well learned from the elders and well stored up in memory, guaranteeing its truth. For I did not, like the generality, take pleasure in those who have much to say, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate their strange commandments, but in those who record such as were given from the Lord to the Faith and come from the Truth itself. And if ever any one came who had been a follower of the elders, I would inquire as to the discourses of the elders, what was said by Andrew, or what by Peter, or what by Philip, or what by Thomas or James, or what by John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord; and the things which Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice.|

The singular |for thee| in the opening words implies that the work of Papias was inscribed to some individual. The first sentence of the extract had evidently followed one in which the writer had spoken of the |interpretations| which appear to have been the main subject of his treatise, and for joining his traditions with which he conceives an apology necessary. Thus we see that Papias is not making a first attempt to write the life of our Lord or a history of the apostles, but assumes the previous existence of a written record. Papias enumerates the ultimate sources of his traditions in two classes: Andrew, Peter, and others, of whom he speaks in the past tense; Aristion and John the Elder, of whom he speaks in the present. As the passage is generally understood, Papias only claims a second-hand knowledge of what these had related, but had inquired from any who had conferred with elders, what Andrew, Peter, etc., had said, and what John and Aristion were saying; the last two being the only ones then surviving. But considering that there is a change of pronouns, we are disposed to think that there is an anacoluthon, and that his meaning, however ill expressed, was that he learned, by inquiry from others, things that Andrew, Peter, and others had said, and also stored up in his memory things which Aristion and John said in his own hearing. Eusebius certainly understands Papias to claim to have been a hearer of this John and Aristion. The word |elders| is ordinarily used of men of a former generation, and would be most naturally understood here of men of the first generation of Christians; if it were not that in the second clause the title seems to be refused to Aristion, who is nevertheless described as a disciple (by which we must understand a personal disciple) of our Lord; and as those mentioned in the first group are all apostles, the word |elder,| as Papias used it, may have included, besides antiquity, the idea of official dignity. As to whether the John mentioned with Aristion is different from John the apostle previously mentioned, see JOHANNES (444) PRESBYTER.

The fragment quoted enables us to fix within certain limits the date of Papias. He is evidently separated by a whole generation from the apostolic age; he describes himself as living when it was not exceptional to meet persons who had. been hearers of the apostles, and (if we understand him rightly) he had met two who professed to have actually seen our Lord Himself. Eusebius tells that Philip the apostle (some suppose that he ought to have said Philip the deacon) came to reside at Hierapolis with his daughters; and that Papias, on the authority of these daughters, tells a story of Philip raising a man from the dead. Eusebius certainly understood Papias to describe himself as contemporary with those daughters and as having heard the story from them. If these were they whom St. Luke describes as prophesying at Caesarea in 58, and if they were young women then, they might have been still alive at Hierapolis between 100 and 110. But as Papias speaks of his inquiries in the past tense, a considerable time had probably elapsed before he published the results. On the whole, we shall not be far wrong in dating the work c.130.

Papias evidently lived after the rise of Gnosticism and was not unaffected by the controversies occasioned by it. Strong asceticism was a feature of some of the earliest Gnostic sects; and their commandments, |Touch not, taste not, handle not,| may well have been |the strange commandments| to which Papias refers. Lightfoot is probably right in thinking that the sarcasm in the phrase |those who have so very much to say| may have been aimed at the work on the Gospel by Basilides in 24 books, and some similar productions of the Gnostic schools of which the later book Pistis Sophia is a sample.

Of the traditions recorded by Papias, what has given rise to most discussion and has been the foundation of most theories is what he relates about the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, which he is the first to mention by name. Concerning Mark he says, |This also the elder [John] said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote accurately everything that he remembered of the things that were either said or done by Christ; but however not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor had been a follower of His; but afterwards, as I said, was a follower of Peter, who framed his teaching according to the needs [of his hearers], but not with the design of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses [or oracles]. Thus Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them. For he took heed to one thing: not to omit any of the things he had heard, or to set down anything falsely therein.| Concerning Matthew, all that remains of what Papias says is, |So then Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, and every one interpreted them as he could.| For a long time no one doubted that Papias here spoke of our Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark; and mainly on the authority of these passages was founded the general belief of the Fathers, that St. Matthew's Gospel had been originally written in Hebrew, and St. Mark's founded on the teaching of Peter. But some last-century critics contended that our present Gospels do not answer the descriptions given by Papias. There is a striking resemblance between the two as we have them at present; but Papias's description, it is said, would lead us to think of them as very different. St. Matthew's Gospel, according to Papias, was a Hebrew book, containing an account only of our Lord's discourses; for so Schleiermacher translates ta logia, which we have rendered |oracles.| St. Mark, on the other hand, wrote in Greek and recorded the acts as well as the words of Christ. Again, St. Mark's Gospel, which in its present state has an arrangement as orderly as St. Matthew's, was, according to Papias, not written in order. The conclusion which has been drawn is, that Papias's testimony relates not to our Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, but to their unknown originals; and accordingly many constantly speak of |the original Matthew,| the |Ur-Marcus,| though there is no particle of evidence beyond what may be extracted from this passage of Papias that there ever was any Gospel by SS. Matthew or Mark different from those we have. Renan even undertakes to give an account of the process by which the two very distinct works known to Papias, St. Matthew's collection of discourses, and St. Mark's collection of anecdotes, came into their present similar forms. In the early times, every possessor of anything that purported to be a record of our Lord desired to have the story complete; and would write into the margin of his book matter he met elsewhere, and so the book of St. Mark's anecdotes was enriched by a number of traits from St. Matthew's |discourses| and vice versa.

If this theory were true, we should expect to find in early times a multitude of gospels differing in their order and selection of facts. Why we should have now exactly four versions of the story is hard to explain on this hypothesis. We should expect that, by such mutual assimilation, all would in the end have been reduced to a single gospel. The solitary fact to which Renan appeals in support of his theory in reality refutes it -- the fact, i.e., that the pericope of the adulteress (John vii.53-viii.11) is absent from some MSS. and differently placed in others. Such an instance is so unusual that critics have generally inferred that this pericope cannot be a genuine part of St. John's Gospel; but if Renan's theory were true, the phenomena present in a small degree in this case ought to be seen in a multitude of cases. There ought to be many parables and miracles of which we should be uncertain whether they were common to all the evangelists or special to one, and what place in that one they should occupy. Further, according to Renan's hypothesis, St. Mark's design was more comprehensive than St. Matthew's. St. Matthew only related our Lord's discourses; St. Mark, the |things said or done by Christ,| i.e. both discourses and anecdotes. St. Mark's Gospel would thus differ from St. Matthew's by excess and St. Matthew's read like an abridgment of St. Mark's. Exactly the opposite is the case.

We count it a mere blunder to translate logia |discourses| as if it were the same as logous. In N.T. (Acts vii.38; Rom. iii.2; Heb. v.12; I. Pet. iv.11) the word has its classical meaning, |oracles,| and is applied to the inspired utterances of God in O.T. Nor is there reason to think that when St. Paul, e.g., says that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God, he confined this epithet to those parts of O.T. which contained divine sayings and refused it to those narrative parts from which he so often drew lessons (Rom. iv.3; I. Cor. x.1, xi.8; Gal. iv.21). Philo quotes as a logion the narrative in Gen. iv.15, |The Lord set a mark upon Cain,| etc., and the words (Deut. x.), |The Lord God is his inheritance.| Similarly the Apostolic Fathers. In Clement (I. Cor.53) ta logia tou theou is used as equivalent to tas hieras graphas. (See also c.19, Polyc. ad Phil.7.) As Papias's younger contemporary Justin Martyr tells us that the reading of the Gospels had in his time become part of Christian public worship, we may safely pronounce the silent substitution of one Gospel for another a thing inconceivable; and we conclude that, as we learn from Justin that the Gospels had been set on a level with the O.T. in the public reading of the church, so we know from Papias that the ordinary name ta logia for the O.T. books had in Christian use been extended to the Gospels which were called ta kuriaka logia, the |oracles of our Lord.| There is no reason to imagine the work of Papias limited to an exposition of our Lord's discourses; we translate therefore its title Kuriakon logion exegeseis, |Expositions of the Gospels.|

The manner in which Papias speaks of St. Mark's Gospel quite agrees with the inspired authority, which the title, as we understand it, implies. Three times in this short fragment he attests St. Mark's perfect accuracy. |Mark wrote down accurately everything that he remembered.| |Mark committed no error.| |He made it his rule not to omit anything he had heard or to set down any false statement therein.| Yet, for some reason, Papias was dissatisfied with St. Mark's arrangement and thought it necessary to apologize for it. No account of the passage is satisfactory which does not explain why, if Papias reverenced St. Mark so much, he was dissatisfied with his order. Here the hypothesis breaks down at once, that Papias only possessed two documents unlike in kind, the one a collection of discourses, the other of anecdotes. Respecting St Mark's accuracy as he did Papias would certainly have accepted his order unless he had some other document to which, in this respect, he attached more value, going over the same ground as St. Mark's but in a different order. If, then, Papias held that St. Mark's Gospel was not written in the right order, what, in his opinion, was the right order? Strauss considers and rejects three answers to this question, as being all irreconcilable at least with the supposition that the Gospel known to Papias as St. Mark's was that which we receive under the name: (1) that the right order was St. John's; (2) that it was St. Matthew's; (3) that Papias meant to deny to St. Mark the merit, not only of the right order, but of any orderly arrangement at all. Lightfoot defended (1) with great ability (Contemp. Rev. Oct.1875, p.848). But there remains another answer which we believe the true one -- viz. that Papias regarded St. Luke's as the right order. The reason this solution has been generally set aside is that St. Luke's Gospel is not mentioned in any extant fragments of Papias, from which it has been assumed that he was unacquainted with Luke's writings. If we had the whole work of Papias the argument from his silence might be reasonable; but we have no right to assume his silence merely because Eusebius included no statement about St. Luke in the few brief extracts from Papias which he gives. Lightfoot has shewn (Coloss. p.52) that Eusebius is not wont without some special reason to copy references made by his predecessors to undisputed books of the Canon. Hilgenfeld finds in the preface of Papias echoes of the preface to St. Luke's Gospel which induce him to believe that Papias knew that gospel. To us this argument does not carry conviction, but there is every appearance that Papias was acquainted with the Acts. In one fragment he mentions Justus Barsabas; in another he gives an account of the death of Judas Iscariot which seems plainly intended to reconcile the story in St. Matthew with that in the Acts. One extant fragment appears to have been part of a comment on our Lord's words preserved by St. Luke, |I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.|

But if Papias knew St. Luke's Gospel, his language with respect to St. Mark's is at once explained. St. Luke's preface declares his intention to write in order, grapsai kathexes; but his order is neither St. Mark's nor St. Matthew's. On this difference we conceive Papias undertook to throw light by his traditional anecdotes. His account is that Mark was but the interpreter of Peter, whose teaching he accurately reported; that Peter had not undertaken at any time to give an orderly account of our Lord's words and deeds, but had merely related some of them from time to time as the immediate needs suggested; that Mark therefore faithfully reported what he had heard, and if his order was not always accurate it was because it had been no part of his plan to aim at accuracy in this respect. With regard to St. Matthew's Gospel, his solution seems to be that the church had not then the Gospel as St. Matthew had written it; that the Greek Matthew was but an unauthorized translation from a Hebrew original which individuals had translated, each for himself as he could. Thus, so far from it being true that Papias did not use our present Gospels, we believe that he was the first to harmonize them, and to proclaim the principle that no apparent disagreement between them affects their substantial truth. Remembering the solicitude Papias here displays to clear the Gospels from all suspicion of error, and the recognition of inspired authority implied in the title logia, we cannot admit the inference which has been drawn from the last sentence of the fragment, that Papias attached little value to the Gospels as compared with the viva voce traditions he could himself attest; and we endorse Lightfoot's explanation, that it was the Gnostic apocryphal writings which Papias found useless in his attempts to illustrate the Gospel narrative accepted by the church.

As we have seen, the extant fragments of Papias do not mention the Gospels of SS. Luke or John by name. Eusebius says, however, that Papias uses testimonies from St. John's first epistle. There is therefore very strong presumption that Papias was acquainted with the Gospel, a presumption strengthened by the fact that the list of the apostles in the fragment of the preface contains names in the order in which they occur in St. John's Gospel, placing Andrew before Peter, and includes some such as Thomas and Philip, who outside that Gospel have little prominence in the Gospel record, and that it gives to our Lord the Johannine title, the Truth. Irenaeus (v.36) has preserved a fragment containing an express recognition of St. John's Gospel; and though Irenaeus only gives it as a saying of the elders, Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., u.s.) has given convincing reasons for thinking that Papias is his authority, a conclusion which Harnack accepts as highly probable. An argument prefixed to a Vatican (9th cent.) MS. of St. John's Gospel quotes a saying of Papias about that Gospel and speaks of Papias as having been John's amanuensis. On the latter statement, see Lightfoot, u.s. p.854; but the evidence seems good enough to induce us to believe that the work of Papias contained some notices of St. John's Gospel which Eusebius has not thought it worth while to mention. Papias belonged to Asia Minor, where the Fourth Gospel according to all tradition was written, and where its authority was earliest recognized; and he is described by Irenaeus as a companion of Polycarp, of whose use of St. John's Gospel we cannot doubt. Eusebius does not mention that Papias used the Apocalypse; but we learn that he did from other trustworthy authorities, and on the subject of Chiliasm Papias held views most distasteful to Eusebius. We learn from Irenaeus (v.33) that Papias, in his fourth book, told, on the authority of |the Elder| [John], how our Lord had said that |the days will come when there shall be vines having 10,000 stems, and on each stem 10,000 branches, and on each branch 10,000 shoots, and on each shoot 10,000 clusters, and in each cluster 10,000 grapes, and each grape when pressed shall give 25 measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall take hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, I am a better cluster, take me, and bless the Lord through me.| The story tells of similar predictions concerning other productions of the earth, and relates how the traitor Judas expressed his unbelief and was rebuked by our Lord. The ultimate original of this story of Papias was a Jewish apocryphal book made known by Ceriani, Monumenta Sac. et Profan., in 1866. See the Apocalypse of Baruch, c.29, in Fritzsche, Libri Apoc. Vet. Test. p.666. To this, and possibly other similar stories, Eusebius no doubt refers when he says that Papias had related certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour and other things of a fabulous character. Amongst these Eusebius quotes the doctrine that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ would be exhibited for a thousand years in a sensible form on. this earth; and he considers that things spoken mystically by the apostles had wrongly been understood literally by Papias, who |was a man of very poor understanding as his writings shew.| The common text of Eusebius elsewhere (iii.26) calls him a very learned man, deeply versed in the Holy Scriptures; but the weight of evidence is against the genuineness of the clause containing this encomium, which probably expresses later church opinion.

Eusebius tells nothing as to Papias's use of St. Paul's Epistles, and, though the silence of Eusebius alone would not go far, Papias may have found no occasion to mention them in a work on the gospel history. In looking for traditions of our Lord's life, Papias would naturally inquire after the testimony of those who had seen Him in the flesh. The very gratuitous inference from the assumed fact that Papias does not quote St. Paul, that he must have been Ebionite and anti-Pauline, is negatived by the fact that, as Eusebius testifies, he used St. Peter's Epistle, a work the teaching of which, as all critics allow, is completely Pauline. If the silence of Eusebius as to the use by Papias of St. John's Gospel and St. Paul's Epistles affords any presumption, it is that Papias gave no indication that his opinion about the undisputed books differed from that which, in the time of Eusebius, was received as unquestioned truth. For Eusebius thought meanly of Papias and, if he had known him to have held wrong opinions about the Canon, would have been likely to have mentioned it in disparagement of his authority in support of Chiliasm.

Eusebius says that Papias tells a story of a woman accused before our Lord of many sins, a story also to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is a reasonable probability that this story may be that of the woman taken in adultery, now found in the common text of St. John's Gospel. Eusebius does not say that Papias took this story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the presumption is that Papias gave it as known to him by oral tradition and not from a written source. If so, Papias need have had no direct knowledge of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Papias has a story about Justus Barsabas having taken a cup of poison without injury. If Papias's copy of St. Mark contained the disputed verses at the end, this story might appropriately have been told to illustrate the verse, |If they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them,| a promise instances of the fulfilment of which are very rare, whether in history or legend. A story of the kind is told of the apostle John, but is probably later than Papias, or we should have been likely to have heard of it here.

Georgius Hamartolus quotes Papias as saying, in his second book, that the apostle John had been killed by the Jews. That there is some blunder is clear; but Lightfoot has made it very probable from comparison with a passage in Origen that a real saying of Papias is quoted, but with the omission of a line or two. Papias, in commenting on Matt. xx.22, may very well have said, as does Origen, that John had been condemned by the Roman emperor to exile at Patmos and that James had been killed by the Jews.

In JOANNES PRESBYTER we quote several authorities (including Irenaeus) who speak of Papias as a disciple of John the Evangelist. He is called by Anastasius of Sinai ho panu and ho polus, and passed in the church as an authority of the highest rank. Jerome (Ep. ad Lucinium, 71 Vallars.) contradicts a report that he had translated the writings of Papias and Polycarp, declaring that he had neither leisure nor ability for such a task. He does not, in his writings, shew any signs that he knew more of the work of Papias than he could have learned from Eusebius. The latest trace of the existence of the work of Papias is that an inventory, a.d.1218, of the possessions of the cathedral of Nismes (Menard. Hist. civil. ecclés. et littér. de la ville de Nismes) contains the entry |Item inveni in claustro -- librum Papie librum de verbis Domini.| No trace of this MS. has been recovered. The fragments of Papias have been assembled in various collections, e.g. Grabe (Spicilegium), Galland and Routh (Rel. Sac.), but can best be read in Gebhardt and Harnack's Apost. Fathers, pt. ii.; a trans. is in the vol. of Apost. Fathers in Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). Dissertations on Papias are very numerous; we may mention important articles in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken by Schleiermacher, 1832, Zahn, 1867, Steitz, 1868; an essay by Weiffenbach (Giessen, 1876), a reply by Leimbach (Gotha, 1878), and a rejoinder by Weiffenbach, Jahrbuch f. Prot. Theol.1877; Hilgenfeld in his Journal, 1875, 1877, 1879; Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev.1867, 1875 ; Harnack, Chronologie.

Others of the name of Papias are -- a martyr with Victorinus (Assemani, Act. Mart. Or. et Occ. ii.60); a martyr with Onesimus at Rome, Feb.16; a physician at Laodicea (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vii.154); and a grammarian Papias in the 11th cent., a note of whose on the Maries of the Gospel was published by Grabe among the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis and accepted as such until Lightfoot established the true authorship.

[G.S.]

Papylus, a martyr
Papylus (Papirius or Papyrius, as Rufinus, and Ado after him, write), April 13. In 1881 Aubé brought some new facts to light respecting this martyr from the Greek MSS. in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Papylus is mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. iv.15) at the end of his account of Polycarp's martyrdom. Ruinart (p.27), in his preface to the Acts of Polycarp, says that according to Eusebius Papylus and his companions Carpus and Agathonice suffered about the same time as Polycarp. This is a mistake of the Bollandist Henschenius, arising out of the Latin version of Eusebius, which inserts the words |sub id tempus,| which have no equivalent in the Greek original. The Acts of Papylus contained in Metaphrastes assign his martyrdom to the Decian persecution. These Acts, however, Aubé thinks utterly worthless. In the Revue archéologique, Dec.1881, p.350, he published a Greek MS. containing Acts which he thinks may be those seen by Eusebius. Aubé seems to agree in placing the martyrdom of Papylus in the Decian persecution. But Lightfoot points out (Ignatius, i.625) that in the Acts mention is made of emperors in the plural, thence he infers that this rather points to the reign of M. Aurelius or of Severus.

[G.T.S.]

Parmenianus, a bp. of Carthage
Parmenianus, successor to Donatus the Great, who followed Majorinus as Donatist bp. of Carthage. Optatus calls him |peregrines,| i.e. probably not a native of Africa. Having adopted Donatist opinions, he succeeded Donatus c.350, was banished a.d.358, and returned under the decree of Julian a.d.362 (Aug. Retract. ii.17; Eus. Chron. ap. Hieron. Opp. vol. iii. p.687). About this time, if not earlier, he published a work, not now extant, in five parts, in defence of Donatism, to which the treatise of Optatus is a reply. About 372 Tichonius, a Donatist, well versed in Scripture, becoming sensible of the narrow and exclusive views of the sect, wrote a book to condemn them, but without abandoning his party. Parmenian replied, condemning the doctrine of Tichonius as tending to connect the true church, that of the Donatists, with the corrupt one, the Catholic, especially its African branch. A council of 270 Donatist bishops was convened at Carthage, which sat for 75 days and at last resolved that |traditors,| even if they refused rebaptism, should be admitted to communion (Aug. Ep.93, 43).

The time of this council is not known. Parmenian died and was succeeded by Primian c.392; but his book against Tichonius fell into the hands of St. Augustine, who, at the request of his friends, discussed it in a treatise in three books, c.402-405 (Tillem. xiii.128 and note 32). For a full account of the treatise, with a list of Scripture quotations, see Ribbek, Donatus und Augustinus, pp.348-366. (See also Aug. Retract. ii.17.)

[H.W.P.]

Pascentius, steward of of imperial property
Pascentius (1), steward or controller of imperial property in Africa, comes domus regiae, severe in the execution of his office, an Arian and a bitter opponent of the Catholic faith, very troublesome to the simple-minded and perhaps not very highly educated clergy of Carthage. (Possidius, Vit. Aug. c.17; Böcking, Not. Dign. c.11, vol. ii. p.374-393.) He requested St. Augustine to confer with him at Carthage on the subject of religion, a.d.406, but refused to allow written notes of the discussion to be made, and asserted that Augustine was afraid to declare his opinions. Augustine therefore wrote two letters in succession to give Pascentius an opportunity of reply. Augustine, compelled by his opponent's repeated evasions to declare his own belief, exhibits this in terms closely resembling the Athanasian Creed, its method of illustration, and sometimes its very words (Aug. Ep.238, 239). Aug. Opp. vol. ii. App. pp.1153-1162, ed. Migne; Tillem. Mém. vol. xiii.164, 165 and note 41; Ceill., vol. ix. pp.185, 186, 194.

[H.W.P.]

Paschasinus
Paschasinus (2), bp. of Lilybaeum in Sicily, c.440, when that country was devastated by Vandal raids (Leonis Magni, Ep. iii. c. i. Migne's ed., note e). LEO Great, sending him pecuniary assistance, consulted him about the Paschal cycle (a.d.443). He replies in favour of the Alexandrian computation against the Roman, but in an abject strain of deference to his patron. He relates in confirmation of his view a miracle which used to occur in the baptistery of an outlying church on the property of his see on the true Paschal Eve every year, the water rising miraculously in the font (ib. c.3). In 451 he received another letter from Leo desiring him to make inquiries as to the Paschal cycle (Ep. lxxxviii. c.4) and sending him the Tome to stir up his energies in the cause of orthodoxy. Immediately after he was sent as one of Leo's legates to the council of Chalcedon (Ep. lxxxix.) and presided on his behalf (Labbe, Conc. vol. iv. p.580 E, etc. The phrase |synodo praesidens,| however, does not occur in the Acta of the council, but only in the signatures of the prelates representing Rome.)

[C.G.]

Paschasius, deacon of Rome
Paschasius (3), deacon of Rome, called by Gregory the Great in his Dialogues, bk. iv. c.40, |a man of great sanctity.| He was a firm supporter of the antipope Laurentius to his death, and his adhesion was a great source of strength to the opponents of Symmachus (cf. Baronius, ann.498). There is extant a work of his in two books, de Sancto Spiritu (Patr. Lat. lxii.9-40), which Gregory (u.s.) calls |libri rectissimi ac luculenti.| The date of his death was c.512.

[G.W.D.]

Pastor
Pastor (1). This name is connected with traditions of the Roman church, which, though accepted as historical by Baronius and other writers, including Cardinal Wiseman (Fabiola, p.189), must be rejected as mythical. These traditions relate to the origin of two of the oldest of the Roman tituli, those of St. Pudentiana and St. Praxedis, which still give titles to cardinals, and the former of which claims to be the most ancient church in the world. The story is that Peter when at Rome dwelt in the house of the senator Pudens in the vicus Patricius, and there held divine service, his altar being then the only one at Rome. Pudens is evidently intended as the same who is mentioned II. Tim. iv.21. His mother's name is said to have been Priscilla, and it is plainly intended to identify her with the lady who gave to an ancient cemetery at Rome its name. The story relates that Pudens, on the death of his wife, converted his house into a church and put it under the charge of the priest Pastor, from whom it was known us |titulus Pastoris.| This titulus is named in more than one document, but in all the name may have been derived from the story. Thus in the Acts of Nemesius, pope Stephen is said to have held a baptism there (Baronius a.d.257, n.23). Our story relates that the baptistery had been placed there by pope Pius I., who often exercised the episcopal functions in this church. Here the two daughters of Pudens, Pudentiana and Praxedis, having given all their goods to the poor, dedicated themselves to the service of God. This church, under the name of Ecclesia Pudentiana, is mentioned in an inscription of a.d.384, and there are epitaphs of priests tituli Pudentis of a.d.489 and 528 (de Rossi, Bull.1867, n.60; 1883, p.107). The original authority for the story appears to be a letter purporting to be written by Pastor to Timothy (see Boll AA. SS. May 19, iv.299). He informs Timothy of the death of his brother Novatus, who, during his illness, had been visited by Praxedis, then the only surviving sisters. He obtains Timothy's consent to the application of the property of Novatus to religious uses according to the direction of Praxedis; and baths possessed by Novatus in the vicus Lateritius are converted into a second titulus, now known as of St. Praxedis. This titulus is mentioned in an epitaph of a.d.491 (de Rossi, Bull.1882, p.65); and priests of both tituli sign in the Roman council of 499. On this letter are founded false letters of pope Pius I. to Justus of Vienna, given in Baronius (Ann.166, i.), a forgery later than the Isodorian Decretals. Those who maintain the genuineness of the letter of Pastor are met by the chronological difficulty of connecting Pudens with both St. Paul and Pius I. It has been argued that such longevity is not impossible; and it has been suggested that Praxedis and Pudentiana were not grand-daughters of Pudens. But the spuriousness of the whole story has been abundantly shown by Tillemont (ii.286, 615).

[G. S.]

Patricius, or St. Patrick
Patricius (10) (St. Patrick), Mar.17, the national apostle of Ireland, has been the subject of much controversy. His existence has been doubted, his name ascribed to 7 different persons at least, and the origin and authority of his mission warmly disputed.

I. The Documents. -- The materials for St. Patrick's history which have a claim to be regarded as historical are, in the first place, the writings of the saint himself. We have two works ascribed to him, his Confession and his Epistle to Coroticus. Both seem genuine.

We have a copy of the Confession more than 1,000 years old preserved in the Book of Armagh, one of the great treasures of the library of Trinity College, Dublin. This copy professes, in the colophon appended to it, to have been taken from the autograph of St. Patrick. |Thus far the volume which St. Patrick wrote with his own hand.| Dr. Todd, in his Life of St. Patrick (p.347), sums up the case for the Confession of St. Patrick: |It is altogether such an account of himself as a missionary of that age, circumstanced as St. Patrick was, might be expected to compose. Its Latinity is rude and archaic, it quotes the ante-Hieronymian Vulgate; and contains nothing inconsistent with the century in which it professes to have been written. If it be a forgery, it is not easy to imagine with what purpose it could have been forged.| This strong testimony might have been made stronger and applies equally clearly to the Ep. to Coroticus. There are two lines of evidence which seem conclusive as to the early date. The one deals with the State Organization, the other with the Ecclesiastical Organization there alluded to and implied. They are both such as existed early in the 5th cent., and could scarcely be imagined afterwards.

To take the State Organization first. In the Ep. to Coroticus he describes himself thus: |Ingenuus fui secundum carnem, decurione patre nascor.| We now know that decurions -- who were not magistrates but town councillors rather, and members of the local senates -- were found all over the Roman empire to its extremest bounds by the end of the 4th cent. Discoveries in Spain last century showed that decurions were established by the Romans in every little mining village, charged with the care of the games, the water supply, sanitary arrangements, education, and the local fortifications; while Hübner in the Corp. Insc. Lat. t. vii. num.54 and 189, showed that decurions existed in Britain (cf. Marquardt and Mommsen, Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer, t. iv. pp.501-516 and Ephem. Epigraph. t. ii. p.137; t. iii. p.103) This institution necessarily vanished amid the barbarian invasions of the 5th cent. Now, St. Patrick's writings imply the existence of decurions. Again, the Confession calls England Britanniae, using the plural, which is strictly accurate and in accordance with the technical usage of the Roman empire at the close of the 4th cent., which then divided Britain into five provinces, Britannia prima and secunda, Maxima Caesariensis, Flavia Caesariensis and Valentia, which were collectively called Britanniae (cf. Böcking's Notitia Dig. t. ii. c. iii. pp.12-14). Further, the Ecclesiastical Organization implied is such as the years about A. D.400 alone could supply. St. Patrick tells us in the opening words of his Confession that his father was Calpurnius, a deacon, his grandfather Potitus, a priest. A careful review of the councils and canons will shew that in Britain and N. Gaul there existed no prohibition of clerical marriage in the last quarter of the 4th cent. Exuperius, bp. of Toulouse, wrote in 404 to pope Innocent I. asking how to deal with married priests who had begotten children since their ordination. Innocent's reply, dated Feb.20, 405, shews, first, that the prohibition of marriage was only a late innovation, as be refers to the decree of pope Siricius, not quite 20 years before (Mansi, iii.670; Hefele, ii.387, Clark's ed.); secondly, that Innocent permitted the clergy of Toulouse to live with their wives if they had contracted marriage in ignorance of papal legislation.

The aspect of the political horizon, and the consequent action of the church as depicted in these writings, correspond with their alleged age. In the Ep. to Coroticus Patrick says, |It is the custom of the Roman Gallic Christians to send holy men to the Franks and other nations with many thousand solidi, to redeem baptized captives.| The term Roman was then used to express a citizen of the Roman empire wherever he dwelt; and the custom itself is one of the strongest evidences as to age. The writings of Zosimus, Salvian, and Sidonius Apollinaris prove the ravages of the Franks in Gaul about the middle of the 5th cent. Salvian mentions the rescue of a captive taken at Cologne in Ep.1. SEVERINUS, the apostle of Austria, a little later in the century, devoted his life to the same work in another neighbourhood, and introduced the payment of tithes for this special object. (See his Life in Pez. Scriptores Rerum Austriacarum, t. i., and in Pertz, Monumenta.) By the end of the 5th cent. the Franks had been converted, and Clovis was the one orthodox sovereign of Christendom, the ally and champion of Catholic bishops. The redemption of captives would be then no longer necessary. This passage could only have been written about the middle of the 5th cent. at the latest. These instances will show how capable St. Patrick's own writings are of standing the tests of historical criticism.

Next in importance stand the collection of Patrician documents contained in the Book of Armagh. The contents of the book are: 1st, Patrician documents, including the oldest copy of the Confession; 2nd, the N.T. in Latin; 3rd, the Life of St. Martin of Tours. The N.T. is remarkable as the only complete copy which has come down from the ancient Celtic church. |The collections,| says Mr. Gilbert (Nat. MSS. of Ireland), |concerning St. Patrick in the first part of the Book of Armagh constitute the oldest writings now extant in connexion with him, and are also the most ancient specimens known of narrative composition in Irish and Hiberno-Latin.| These documents are all now accessible in print, though a critical edition of them, and indeed of the whole Book of Armagh, is a desideratum in Celtic literature.

II. Life and History. -- The story of St. Patrick's life may be derived from the primary authorities, his own writings and the Patrician documents which really belong to the 7th and 8th cents. He was born probably at Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton in Scotland. St. Patrick, in the Confession, names Bannavem Taberniae as the residence of his parents, a name which cannot now be identified. (Cf. archbp. Moran in Dublin Rev., Apr.1880, pp.291-326.) He was carried captive into Antrim when 16 years old, in one of those raids which Roman writers like Ammianus Marcellinus and Irish Annalists like the Four Masters shew were so prevalent during the 2nd half of the 4th cent. He became the slave of Milchu, the king of Dalaradia, the commencement of whose reign the Four Masters assign to 388, so that the very earliest year for St. Patrick's birth would be 372. Dalaradia was the most powerful kingdom of N.E. Ireland. It extended from Newry, in the S. of co. Down, to the hill of Slemish, the most conspicuous mountain of central Antrim. In the 7th cent. traditions about his residence there were abundantly current in the locality, as indeed they are still. He lived near the village of Broughshane, 5 or 6 miles E. of Ballymena, where a townland, Ballyligpatrick, the town of the hollow of Patrick, probably commemorates the position of the farm where he fed Milchu's swine (cf. Dr. Reeves's Antiq. of Down and Connor, pp.78, 83, 84, 334-348) After 7 years he escaped, went to Gaul and studied under Germanus of Auxerre. He remained for a very long period, some say 30, others 40 years, in Gaul, where he was ordained priest and bishop. He then returned to Ireland, visiting England on his way. He landed where the river Vartry flows into the sea at Wicklow, as Palladius had done before him. It was a very natural point for mariners in those days to make, though now a port diligently avoided by them. Wicklow head offers shelter along a coast singularly destitute of harbours of refuge. The Danes three centuries later learned its advantage, and founded a settlement there, whence the modern name of Wicklow. The nature of the harbour was attractive to navigators like Palladius and Patrick. Its strand and murrough, or common, extending some miles N. from the Vartry, offered special opportunities for dragging up the small ships then used. St. Patrick was received in a very hostile manner by the pagans of Wicklow on landing. A shower of stones greeted them, and knocked out the front teeth of one of his companions, St. Mantan, whence the Irish name of Wicklow, Killmantan, or Church of Mantan (Joyce's Irish Names, p.103; Colgan, AA. SS. p.451; Reeves's Antiquities, p.378). St. Patrick then sailed N., compelled with true missionary spirit to seek first of all that locality where he had spent seven years of his youth and had learned the language and customs of the Irish. We can still trace his stopping-places. Dublin only existed in those days as a small village beside a ford or bridge of hurdles over the Liffey, serving as a crossing-place for the great S.E. road from Tara to Wicklow, a bridge, like those still found in the bogs of Ireland, composed of branches woven together, which serve to sustain very considerable weights. St. Patrick landed, according to Tirechan, at an island off the N. coast of co. Dublin, still called Inispatrick (in 7th cent. Insula Patricii), whence he sailed to the coast of co. Down, where his frail bark was stopped by the formidable race off the mouth of Strangford Lough. He sailed up this lough, which extends for miles into the heart of co. Down, and landed at the mouth of the Slaney, which flows into the upper waters of the Lough, within a few miles of the church of Saul, a spot successfully identified by Mr. J. W. Hanna in a paper on the |True Landing-place of St. Patrick in Ulster| (Downpatrick, 1858). There he made his first convert Dichu, the local chief, and founded his first church in a barn which Dichu gave him, whence the name Sabhall (Celtic for barn) or Saul, which has ever since continued to be a Christian place of worship (cf. Reeves, Antiq. pp.40, 220). From Dichu he soon directed his steps towards Central Antrim and king Milchu's residence, where he had spent the days of his captivity. His fame had reached Milchu, whose Druids warned him that his former servant would triumph over him. So Milchu set fire to all his household goods and perished in their midst just as St. Patrick appeared. St. Patrick now (a.d.433), determining to strike a blow at the very centre of Celtic paganism, directed his course towards Tara. He sailed to the mouth of the Boyne, where, as the Book of Armagh tells us, he laid up his boats, as to this day it is impossible for the smallest boats to sail up the Boyne between Drogheda and Navan. Patrick proceeded along the N. bank of the river to the hill of Slane, the loftiest elevation in the country, dominating the vast plain of Meath. The ancient Life in the Book of Armagh is here marked by touches of geographical exactness which guarantee its truth. Being determined to celebrate Easter on the hill of Slane, he, according to the custom of the early Christians, lit his Paschal fire on Easter Eve, a custom which we know from other sources was universal at that time (cf. Martene, de Antiq. Ritib. t. iii. lib. iv. c.24, pp.144, 145, and arts. on | Easter, Ceremonies of,| and |Fire, Kindling of,| in D. C. A.).

This fire was at once seen on Tara, where the king of Ireland, Laoghaire, was holding a convention of the chiefs of Ireland. The ritual of the convention demanded that no fire should be lit in his dominions on this night till the king's fire was lit on Tara. St. Patrick's act directly challenged the edict of the king, who proceeded to Slane to punish the bold aggressor. The narrative of the conflict between St. Patrick and king Laoghaire and his priests is marked by a series of miracles and legends, terminating, however, with the defeat of paganism and the baptism of great numbers of the Irish, including Laoghaire himself, who yielded a nominal adhesion to the truth. (See Mr. Petrie's great work on the Hill of Tara, where the subject has been exhaustively discussed.)

The Paschal controversy, about which Cummian wrote (a.d.634), throws an interesting light upon the date of the introduction of Christianity into Ireland. The Irish have been accused of Quartodeciman practices as to Easter, which is quite a mistake. They simply adhered to the old Roman cycle, which was superseded in 463 by the Victorian cycle. [|Easter,| in D. C. A. vol. i. p.594.] The invasions of the barbarians then cut off the Celtic church from a knowledge of the more modern improvements in the calendar, which they afterwards resisted with a horror natural to simple people. The English surplice riots of bp. Blomfield's time shew how a much shorter tradition may raise a popular commotion. This fixes the introduction of Christianity into Ireland in the first half of 5th cent. The alleged connexion of the Irish church with Egypt and the East, as shewn in art, literature, architecture, episcopal and monastic arrangements, would afford material for an interesting article on the peculiarities of the Irish church. (See Butler's Coptic Churches of Egypt, Oxf.1885.)

See Sir Samuel Fergusson's treatise on the Patrician Documents in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy (Dec.1885), and Benjamin Robert's Etude critique sur la vie de St. Patrice (Paris, 1883), where a diligent use has been made of modern authorities, and, pp.3-7, a convenient summary given of the literature. A cheap popular Life by E. J. Newell is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, who also pub. the Epp. and Hymns, including the poem of Secundinus in his praise, in Eng. ed. by T. Olden. Cf. esp. The Tripartite Life of Patrick, with other documents, etc., by Whitley Stokes in Rolls Series, No.89, 2 vols. (Lond.1887); also W. Bright, The Roman See in the Early Church, pp.367-385 (Lond.1896).

[G.T.S.]

Patrocius, a martyr
Patrocius (2) (St. Parre), Jan.21, a martyr supposed to have suffered under Aurelian, and commemorated by Greg. Turon. Glor. Mart. c.64. His Acts are fully told by the Bollandists, AA. SS Jan. ii.342-349. A curious story told by Gregory (l.c.) shews how his Acts originated. Patroclus had a chapel in Gaul served by a solitary priest. The populace despised this chapel because it possessed no Acts of his passion, and a traveller came to the priest one day and shewed him a book which proved to be the Acts of his own saint. The priest sat up all night copying them, and then returned the book to the traveller, who went his way. The priest at once shewed his bishop the Acts. The prelate was suspicious, taxed him with forgery, and, according to the stern discipline of the Gallic church, flogged him on the spot. An army, however, shortly afterwards invaded Italy, and brought back an identical copy of the Acts, thus proving the good faith of the priest. The people thereupon built a splendid church in honour of Patroclus.

[G.T.S.]

Patroclus, bp. of Arles
Patroclus (3), bp. of Arles, between SS. Heros and Honoratus (a.d.412-426). In 412 the people of Arles drove out Heros and elected Patroclus, a creature of Constantius (Prosper Aquit. Chronicon, Migne, Patr. Lat. li.590). As bishop he is said to have sold ecclesiastical offices (Prosper Tyro, Chronicon, in Bouquet i.638) and hoarded up stores of ill-gotten wealth (cf. the funeral sermon of Hilary of Arles upon St. Honoratus, c. vi. Patr. Lat. l.1265). He seems, however, to have commended himself to pope Zosimus, who conferred upon him unprecedented privileges of jurisdiction, and his history illustrates the relations of the French dioceses. On the ground that Arles was the fountain-head of Gallic Christianity, the pope confirmed to the see all parishes it had ever held, whether within the province or not, and gave Patroclus exclusive rights of ordination over the independent provinces of Vienne, Narbonensis Prima, and Narbonensis Secunda, and deposed Proculus, bp. of Marseilles, for infringing these privileges by ordaining in his own diocese. On the ground of Patroclus's personal merits, the pope, in a letter addressed to all the Gallic bishops, forbade any cleric of whatever rank to visit Rome without first obtaining literae formatae, or letters of identification and recommendation, from the bp. of Arles. See the pope's correspondence from Mar.22, 417, to Feb.5, 418, which is chiefly occupied with Arles, Epp. i. v. vi. vii. x. xi. Migne, Patr. Lat. xx.643, 665, 666, 668, 673, 674. These privileges were productive of great dissatisfaction in the neighbouring provinces and, in the matter of the jurisdiction, Zosimus's orders were virtually rescinded by his successor, Bonifacius I., who, in a letter written Feb.9, 422, asserted the right of Hilary, bp. of Narbonne, to consecrate the bp. of Lodève in his province, as against Patroclus, who had usurped it (Ep. iii. Patr. Lat. xx.772-774). In 425 Patroclus was ordered by Theodosius to assemble for discussion the Gallic bishops who professed the Pelagian and Celestian heresies, the emperor decreeing exile for such as should not recant within 20 days. Patroclus was murdered in 426 by a barbarian officer (Chronicon, Patr. Lat. li.593-594).

[S.A.B.]

Patrophilus of Scythopolis
Patrophilus (1) of Scythopolis, one of the original Arian party, took a leading part in all their principal acts and was one of the most relentless opponents of Athanasius, by whom he is designated as a pneumatomachos (adv. Serap. iv.7, p.360). He enjoyed considerable reputation for theological learning, and trained Eusebius of Emesa in the exposition of Scripture (Socr. H. E. ii.9). When Arius, driven from Alexandria, took refuge in Palestine, Patrophilus was one of the Palestinian bishops who warmly espoused his cause, wrote in support of his teaching (Athan. de Synod. p.886), and in a.d.323 joined with Paulinus of Tyre and Eusebius of Caesarea in summoning a local synod, which granted Arius permission to hold private religious assemblies (Soz. H. E. i.15). At Nicaea he was one of the 17 episcopal partisans of Arius, and united with them in drawing up a creed which was indignantly rejected by the council (Theod. H. E. i.7) Embittered by defeat, he became one of the most relentless persecutors of Athanasius. In 330 he took part in the synod at Antioch by which Eustathius was deposed (ib. i.21). At the synod of Tyre (a.d.335) he was one of the most active in bringing about the condemnation of Athanasius (Labbe, ii.436; Athan. Apol. c. Arian. cc.73, 74, 77), and the same year he attended the abortive synod of the Dedication at Jerusalem (Socr. H. E. i.31; Soz. H. E. ii.26; Theod. H. E. i.31). Passing thence to Constantinople at the empress's command, he denounced Athanasius as having threatened the imperial city with starvation by preventing the sailing of the Alexandrian corn-ships, and procured his banishment to Trèves (Socr. H. E. i.35; Theod. H. E. i.31; Theophan. p.26; Athan. Apol. c. Asian. c.87). In 341 be took part in the ambiguous council of Antioch, in Encaeniis (Soz. H. E. iii.5). He was one of the ordainers of George, the violent heterodox intruder into the see of Alexandria in 353 (ib. iv.8), and with his leader Acacius kept entirely aloof from Athanasius when Maximus of Jerusalem welcomed him on his return from banishment in 346, and before long contrived to establish Cyril in Maximus's place as their own nominee (Theophan. p.34; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p.145). He was one of the few Eastern bishops who attended the council of Milan in 355 (his name appearing erroneously in the lists as Stratophilus), and he took part in the condemnation and deposition of Eusebius of Vercelli, on whose banishment to Scythopolis, Patrophilus, |his jailer,| as Eusebius calls him, vented his annoyance by studied insults and ill-treatment (Eus. Vercell. Ep. apud Baronium Annal.356, No.93). According to Philostorgius (H. E. iv.8-10) Patrophilus poisoned the mind of Constantius against Basil of Ancyra, who had at one time exercised unbounded influence over him, and was the proposer of the scheme of breaking up the proposed general council into two. When the Eastern division met at Seleucia, Sept.27, 359, Patrophilus was a leading member of the shifty Acacian party pledged to the Homoiousion. Finding the majority of the synod against them, he and his party refused to take part in the later sessions, and at the fourth sitting, Oct.1, he shared in the sentence of deposition passed on Acacius and his followers (Socr. H. E. ii.40; Soz. H. E. iv.23). He immediately returned home, where he was kept informed by Acacius of the course events were taking in the synod held at Constantinople (Jan.360), when Aetius and the Anomoeans were condemned, several leading semi-Arians deposed, the Ariminian creed imposed, and Eudoxius enthroned bp. of Constantinople (Socr. H. E. ii.43). He died very soon afterwards, for his grave was desecrated during the temporary pagan reaction under Julian in 361, when his remains were scattered and his skull mockingly used as a lamp (Theoph. p.40; Niceph. x.13; Chron. Pasch. (ed. Ducange, 1688), p.295; Tillem. Mém. ecclés. t. vi. vii.; Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii.683).

[E.V.]

Paula, a Roman lady
Paula (2), a noble and wealthy Roman lady, who accompanied Jerome to Palestine in 385, and lived the rest of her life at Bethlehem, dying in 404. The chief facts of her life were given in Jerome's Epitaphium of her addressed to Eustochium (Hieron. Ep.108, ed. Vall.). She was born in 347, and while quite young was married to the senator Toxotius, of the Julian family, which traced its descent from Aeneas. Through her mother Blaesilla she was connected with the Scipios and the Gracchi, through her father Rogatus with a Greek family, which traced its descent from Agamemnon. Her family was connected with the Aemilian gens, and her name taken from that of the illustrious Paulus. Jerome records these ancestral glories in her epitaph,

Scipio quam genuit, Pauli fudere parentes,
Gracchorum soboles, Agamemnonis inclyta proles.

She was possessed of great wealth, owning, amongst other properties, the town of Nicopolis or Actium. During her early married life, though always without reproach in her character, she lived in the usual luxury of Roman patricians. She gave birth to four daughters, BLAESILLA, who married, but lost her husband and died early in 384; Paulina, wife of Pammachius; Julia, called EUSTOCHIUM, and Ruffina, who died early, probably in 386; and one son, called after his father Toxotius. After the birth of a son she appears to have adopted the practice of continency (Hieron. Ep. cviii.4), but to have still lived with her husband, whose death (probably in 380) she deeply lamented. In 382, during the synod held at Rome (following on the council of Constantinople), she entertained the bps. Epiphanius of Salamis and Paulinus of Antioch, and by them her ascetic tendencies, already considerable, were heightened. Through them Jerome, who had come to Rome with them, became her friend. She imbibed through him her love for the study of Scripture, and, with her daughter Eustochium, attended his readings at the palace of Marcella. She gave vast sums to the poor, spending her own fortune and that of her children in charity. She assumed a coarse dress and a sordid appearance, and undertook all sorts of menial duties in the relief of distress. But her mind was set upon the monastic life and upon the country of the Eastern hermits. After the death of Blaesilla she determined to quit Rome, and, early in 385, disregarding the tears of her son Toxotius, then a child, who was left to the wardship of the praetor, and the entreaties of Ruffina, then a girl of marriageable age, who begged her mother to wait till she was married, she sailed for the East. After visiting Epiphanius in Cyprus, she rejoined Jerome and his friends at Antioch. With him she braved the winter's journey through Lebanon to Palestine [[472]HIERONYMUS] and Egypt, from whence returning the whole party settled in Bethlehem in the autumn of 386.

Their life there is related under HIERONYMUS, and only personal details need here be given. Her letter to Marcella inviting her to come to Palestine (Hieron. Ep.46) shows her enthusiastic delight in every sacred place and association in the Holy Land. Paula and Eustochium lived at first in a cottage till their convent and hospice (diversorium) were built. They then founded a monastery for men, and a convent of three degrees for women, who lived separately, though having the same dress, and met for the services. Paula's capacity of management, her patience and tact, are warmly praised by Jerome (Ep. cviii. c.19). She is said by Palladius (Hist. Laus.79) to have had the care of Jerome and to have found it a difficult task. Her scriptural studies, begun in Rome, were carried on earnestly at Bethlehem. She had (through her father's family) a good knowledge of Greek, and she learnt Hebrew to be able to repeat and sing the Psalms in the original (c.26). She read constantly with Jerome, and they went through the whole Bible together (ib.). In his account of his writings in the catalogue (de Vir. Ill.135) written in 392, Jerome says, |Epistolarum ad Paulam et Eustochium, quia quotidie scribuntur, in certus est numerus.| She was remarkably teachable, and when doubts were suggested to her by Origenistic teachers, she was able at once, with Jerome's help, to put them aside. Her charities were so incessant that Jerome states that she left Eustochium with a great debt, which she could only trust the mercy of Christ would enable her to pay (c.15). It is believed that Jerome, who had in vain counselled prudence and moderation (ib.), gave her pecuniary help in her later years. Her health was weak; her body slight; her mortifications, against many of which Jerome remonstrated and which gave occasion to some scandals, and her frequent illnesses had worn her away; and in her 57th year (404) she sank under a severe attack of illness. Jerome describes with deep feeling the scene at her death, the personal attention of her daughter to all her wants, the concern of the whole Christian community. The bishops of the surrounding cities were present. John of Jerusalem, who only four years before had been at strife with the convents of Bethlehem, was there. Her funeral was a kind of triumph, the whole church being gathered together to carry her to her resting-place in the centre of the cave of the Nativity. She is reckoned as a saint by the Roman church, her day, that of her death, being Jan.26.

[W.H.F.]

Paula, daughter of Toxotius
Paula (3), granddaughter of foregoing, daughter of Toxotius, and of Laeta the daughter of Albinus, a heathen and a priest. Laeta embraced Christianity and wrote to consult Jerome as to Paula's education, who replied in Ep.107, written in 401. He desires that she should lead the ascetic life and prepare to consecrate herself to Christ in virginity; and begs that, if she could not carry out at Rome the system of instruction in scriptural knowledge which he prescribed, she might be sent to Bethlehem. She was probably sent there while still a child, though not till after her grandmother's death. Several of Jerome's commentaries are dedicated to her with her aunt Eustochium, and she is mentioned by both Jerome and Augustine in their correspondence in 416 (Hieron. Epp.134, 143, both to Augustine).

[W.H.F.]

Paulina, daughter of Paula
Paulina (1), daughter of Paula the friend of Jerome, and wife of PAMMACHIUS. She married about the time when her mother and her sister Eustochium went with Jerome to Palestine in 385. Her children died at birth and she herself probably died in childbirth in 397. Her merits are described in consolatory letters to Pammachius from Jerome (Ep.66, ed. Vall.) and Paulinus (Ep.13, Migne's Patr. Lat. vol.61).

[W.H.F.]

Paulinianus
Paulinianus, younger brother of Jerome. He was still young in 385 (|adolescens,| Hieron. c. Rut. iii.22) when he left Rome with his brother and their friend Vincentius, and he was under 30 when ordained in 394 (Hieron. adv. Joan. Hier. § 8). He shared his brother's journeys in Palestine and settled with him in Bethlehem, where he probably remained to the end of his life. He was modest, only desiring to help his brother in the monastery. But Epiphanius, coming to Jerusalem in 394, and finding (or rather promoting) a schism between the monasteries of Bethlehem and bp. John of Jerusalem, took him to the monastery which he had founded at Ad, and there, against the protests and even resistance of Paulinian, ordained him priest. (See in Hieron. Ep. li.1, ed. Vall. the trans. of Epiphanius's explanatory letter to John of Jerusalem.) Paulinian may perhaps have acted as presbyter in the monasteries for a time, but he felt it prudent during the vehement controversy which sprang up between Jerome and bp. John of Jerusalem to go to Epiphanius in Cyprus. Jerome declares (contra Joannem § 41) that his brother was in Cyprus.

[W.H.F.]

Paulinus, bishop of Tyre
Paulinus (3), bp. of Tyre and afterwards of Antioch, a.d.328-329 (Clinton, F. R.). He was apparently a native of Antioch, and, according to his friend and panegyrist Eusebius (Eus. in Marcell. i.4, p.19), filled the office of bp. of Tyre with great splendour, and after the cessation of the persecution rebuilt with great magnificence the cathedral elaborately described by the historian in the inaugural oration delivered by him at its dedication (ib. H. E. x.4). Paulinus was |claimed by the church of the Antiochenes as their own property,| hos oikeiou agathou metapoiethenai, and chosen their bishop. According to Philostorgius, he only held his new dignity for half a year before his death (Philost. H. E. iii.15). Paulinus, like his friend Eusebius of Caesarea, was an Arianizer, claimed by Arius in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia as one of his sympathizers (Theod. H. E. i.5). Eusebius of Caesarea lavishes unstinting praise on his fellow-partisan, dedicates to him his Ecclesiastical History (Eus. H. E. x.1), and speaks with great indignation of the unfounded charges brought against him by Marcellus, with the view of fixing on him the impious tenet that our blessed Lord is no more than a created being (in Marcell. u.s.).

[E.V.]

Paulinus, bishop of Trèves
Paulinus (4), St., 6th bp. of Trèves, between St. Maximinus and St. Bonosus, one of the foremost Gallic champions of orthodoxy against Arianism. He was probably consecrated in 349. In 351, at the council of Sirmium, Paulinus seems to have boldly championed the orthodox cause. The letter of condemnation of Athanasius tendered for his signature he scornfully rejected, exclaiming that he would sign the condemnation of Photinus and Marcellus, but not of Athanasius (Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Sacr. ii.37, Migne, Patr. Lat. xx.150). At the council of Arles in 353 Paulinus's fate was decided. The emperor Constantius there decreed the banishment of bishops who should refuse to subscribe the condemnation of Athanasius. Paulinus remained steadfast, and, after being condemned by the bishops, was driven into exile in Phrygia, to parts inhabited by heathen and heretics. This occurred in 353 or, at latest, in 354, not 356, as Jerome gives it. He died in 358 or 359. The church of his name outside the walls was one of the earliest at Trèves (Wilmowsky, Der Dom zu Trier, p.11).

For his life see, further, the passages from the works of Athanasius collected, Boll. Acta SS. Aug. vi.669 sqq.; Hilarius, ad Const. Aug. lib. i.; Lib. contra Const. Imp.11; Fragr. Migne, Patr. Lat. x.562, 588, 631.

[S.A.B.]

Paulinus, disciple of Ephraem Syrus
Paulinus (5) (Paulonas), a priest and a disciple of Ephraem Syrus. Gennadius (de Script. Eccl. c. iii. in Patr. Lat. lviii.1062) gives a short account of him, speaking of his great talent, knowledge of Scripture, and power as a preacher. After his master's death he |separated from the church, and wrote much against the faith,| being of an ambitious temperament and eager for renown.

[G.W.D.]

Paulinus, bp. Eustathian party at Antioch
Paulinus (6), bp. of the Eustathian or old Catholic party at Antioch, 362-388, a man highly esteemed for piety. He was one of Eustathius's presbyters, and, subsequently to the death of Eustathius, was recognized as the head of the Eustathians, who, refusing to hold communion with Meletius, with whom they were doctrinally agreed, in consequence of his having been appointed and consecrated by Arians, remained some time without a bishop, holding their meetings for worship in a small church within the walls of Antioch, the use of which had been granted by the Arian bp. Evagrius, out of respect for Paulinus's high character. Lucifer of Calaris, on his way home from his banishment in Upper Egypt, a.d.362, went straight to Antioch, where, finding it impossible to reconcile the two contending parties he took the fatal step of ordaining Paulinus bp. of the Eustathian Catholics. This rendered union impossible, and the church had to lament the consequent schism at Antioch for more than half a century. The controversy between the churches of the West and of Egypt which supported Paulinus, and that of the East which adhered to Meletius, was not finally healed till Alexander became bp, of Antioch, a.d.413. For the history of this protracted schism see LUCIFERUS of Calaris; EUSTATHIUS (3) of Antioch; MELETIUS (3) of Antioch; EUSEBIUS (93) of Vercelli; FLAVIANUS (4). The death of Paulinus may be dated 388.

[E.V.]

Paulinus, biographer of Ambrose
Paulinus (7), writer of the Life of St. Ambrose, a work which he says he undertook at the request of St. Augustine. He was well qualified for his task by his intimate acquaintance with St. Ambrose and attendance upon him in his last illness, and by information gathered from well-informed persons, especially his sister Marcellina. He seems to call himself the bishop's secretary (notarius) and he was certainly with him at his death (cc.33, 35, 38, 42, 47). In his introduction he expresses his great anxiety to adhere strictly to the truth and to deliver what he has to say impartially, and this he appears to have done. After the death of St. Ambrose he went to Africa, where he was well received by the church, and distinguished himself by defending the memory of his friend and patron against an attack upon him by Muranus, bp. of Bollita. It was perhaps this which led to his acquaintance with St. Augustine, and his becoming the biographer of St. Ambrose. He took a prominent part in the proceedings of the council of Carthage, a.d.412, against Celestius. Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. pp.57, 80; Cave; Hist. Lit. i. p.402; Ceillier, vol. vii. p.533, viii.549, ix.453.

[H.W.P.]

Paulinus, bishop of Nola
Paulinus (8), St., bp. of Nola, one of a patrician family of whom some had been Christians (Ausonius, Ep. xxiv.103; Paulin. Ep. xl. Prudentius, Symm. i.558, 560; Baronius, 394, 78, 99). They had property in Aquitania, and probably resided there habitually (Ambros. Ep. lviii.1). His father was praefectus praetorio of Gaul, had large possessions in the province in which he lived, and was the founder of the town of Burgus (Bourg) on the Dordogne, and, as well as his wife, appears to have been a Christian.

I. First Period (353-394). -- Besides Paulinus, his parents had an elder son and a daughter. He was probably born at Bordeaux, a.d.353 or 354, and his tutor was Ausonius, who thought very highly of him as a pupil, regarded him with warm affection, and addressed to him many of his poetical epistles. The affection of Ausonius was fully returned by his pupil, who declares that he owed to him all the distinction he had attained.

Whatever merit his Latin compositions possess, he was by his own admission not strong in Greek, and in a letter to Rufinus, a.d.408, regrets his inability to translate accurately an epistle of St. Clement (Ep. xlvi.2). He entered early into public life, became a member of the senate, and filled the office of consul for part of the official year in the place of some one who had vacated it; in what year is not known, his name not appearing in the Fasti, but before 379 when Ausonius held the office and says that his pupil attained the dignity earlier than himself (Aus. Ep. xx.4, xxv.60). Paulinus has been supposed also to have been prefect of New Epirus, a supposition consistent with his own mention of frequent and laborious journeys by land and sea, but of which there is no direct evidence, though an edict of the joint emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian undoubtedly exists, addressed to a prefect of that province of his name, a.d.372. He certainly held a judicial office, for in one of his poems he expresses satisfaction at having condemned no one to death during his tenure of it. Lebrun conjectures that after his consulship he became consularis of Campania and resided at Nola (Carm. xxi.396; Tillem. vol. xiv. p.8). Possessed of easy fortune and enjoying the best society, he lived a life free from outward reproach, but one for which he afterwards found great fault with himself. His health was never good, and he suffered much from fatigue in his journeys (Carm. x.134; xiii.2, 10; Ep. v.4). In the course of them he fell in with Victricius bp. of Rouen and Martin bp. of Tours at Vienne in Gaul, and ascribed to the latter the restoration of his sight, the loss of which was threatened, apparently by cataract (Ep. xviii.9; Sulpic. Sev. Vit. S. Mart. xix.3, ed. Halm.). He also regarded St. Ambrose with great veneration, calling him |father| (Ep. iii.6). But his chief object of veneration was Felix of Nola, to whom he devoted himself specially when he visited Nola at about 26 or 27 years of age, a.d.379 (Carm. xiii.7, 9; xxi.350, 381). About this time, but not later than 389, he and his brother received baptism at Bordeaux, from Delphinus, the bishop there (Epp. iii.4; xx.6; xxxv.; xxxvi.). Not long after he began to think of retiring from the world, and in 389 or ago went to Spain, residing chiefly at Barcelona. During this time he married a Spanish lady of good fortune and irreproachable character, named Therasia, and a son was born to them, who died after a few days (Prudentius, Peristeph. v.41, 44; Dexter, Chron. a.d.296; Carm. v.66; xxi.400; xxxv.599, 610). There seems good reason for placing the violent death of his brother about this time, when not only his brother's property was in danger of confiscation, but that of Paulinus himself and even his life (Carm. xxi.414-427; Buse, vol. i. p.157). It was perhaps partly due to these events that during his stay in Spain he was led to give up the senate and worldly business and refused to take any further interest in |profane| literature (Ep. iv.2; xxii.3; Carm. x.304, 316). But he continued to write verses on sacred subjects to the end of his life. Determined to renounce the world, he parted with a large portion of his property and his wife's, spending some of the money in redeeming captives, releasing debtors, and the like. In compliance with a sudden popular demand, he was ordained priest, but without any especial cure of souls, by Lampius, bp. of Barcelona, on Christmas Day, 393 (Epp. i.10; ii.2; iii.4). He appears to have been already well acquainted with some of the most eminent African clergy, Alypius, Augustine, Aurelius, and others. In a letter to St. Augustine he mentions his work against the Manicheans, i.e. probably his de Doctrina Christiana, together with the single volume de Vera Religione in which Manichean doctrine is discussed (Aug. Ep. xxvii.4). In the same letter Paulinus speaks of his own abandonment of the world, and requests Augustine to instruct and direct him.

II. Second Period (394-409). -- In 394 he determined to retire to Nola, where he had property, including a house. On his way he saw St. Ambrose, probably at Florence, and in a letter to Sulpicius, whom he begs to visit him at Nola, he speaks of much jealousy being shewn him at Rome by pope Siricius and others of the clergy, probably on account of the unusual circumstances of his ordination; whereas at Nola, where not long after his arrival he had a serious illness, he was visited by nearly all the bishops of Campania, either in person or by deputy, by clergymen and some laymen, and received friendly letters from many African bishops who sent messengers to him. At Nola he entered with his wife at once upon the course of life he had marked out, and which he pursued as far as possible until his death, a.d.431. SS. Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome regarded the self-sacrifice of him and his wife with high respect and admiration (Ambros. Ep. lviii.1-3; Hieron. Epp. lviii.6; cxviii.5). Augustine writes to him in terms of warm admiration and affection (Aug. Ep. xxvii.), and in a second letter announces his appointment as coadjutor to Valerius, bp. of Hippo, and urges Paulinus to visit him in Africa (Aug. Ep. xxxi.). St. Jerome exhorts him and Therasia to persevere in their self-denial, and praises highly his panegyric on the emperor Theodosius, a work which he himself mentions but which has perished (Hieron. Ep. lviii.; Paul. Ep. xxviii.6; Gennadius, c.48). In reply to Augustine and to letters of the African bishops, Paulinus writes to Augustine's friend Romanianus, congratulating the African church on the appointment of Augustine and hoping that his |trumpet| may sound forcibly in the ears of Romanianus's son Licentius, to whom also he addressed a letter ending

Vive precor, sed vive Deo, nam vivere mundo
Mortis opus, vera est vivere vita Deo.

When Paulinus settled at Nola, the burial-place of Felix, called in the Martyrology of Bede in Pincis or in Pineis, about a mile from the town, had become the site of four churches (basilicae), one built by pope Damasus, and also a chapel. Probably none of these were of any great size. Paulinus added a fifth. The church whose dedication he mentions in Ep.32 is described by him as having a triple apse (trichorum, i.e. trichoron). (Ep. xxxii.17; Isid. Orig. xv.8, 7.) It was perhaps on the site of the one built by Damasus, and contained not only the tomb of Felix, but beneath the altar (altaria) remains of various saints and martyrs, including SS. John Bapt., Andrew, Luke, Thomas, and others of less note, including St. Nazarius, of whom some relics were sent to him by Ambrose (Ep. xxxii.17; Carm. xxvii.436, 439), but above all the precious fragment of the true cross, brought from Jerusalem by Melania and presented by her to Paulinus a.d.398, and of which he sent a chip (astula) enclosed in a tube of gold to Sulpicius, as a special offering from Therasia and himself to Bassula, his friend's mother-in-law, to honour the churches built by him at Primuliacum (Ep. xxxi.). The pavement, walls, and columns of this apse were marble, and the vaulted roof, from which lamps were suspended by chains, was ceiled with mosaic representing the Trinity symbolically, and also the twelve apostles, with an inscription in verse describing the subjects represented. Of this mosaic some remains were visible in 1512. All the buildings, both churches and cloisters, were adorned with pictures representing Scripture subjects, in the older church from the N.T. and in the newer one from O.T., for the introduction of which Paulinus apologizes on the score of their utility in occupying the attention of the illiterate people who flocked to the grave of Felix in large numbers at all times, and sometimes spent whole nights there in the winter, watching and fasting, having brought torches with them. With these pictures Paulinus hoped to employ their minds and prevent them from excess in eating or drinking (Carm. xxvii.552-598).

Paulinus also devoted much pains and cost to the erection of a new church at Fundi, a place endeared to him by early recollections and at which he possessed property. He enriched it with relics of martyrs and apostles, including St. Andrew, St. Luke, SS. Nazarius, Gervasius, and Protasius (Ep. xxxii.17).

His own residence was a house he had formerly built or enlarged as an asylum for the poor. He added a second story for the use of himself, his associates, and his visitors, reserving the ground-floor for the poor, so that by their ascending prayers the buildings above might be strengthened (Ep. xxix.13; Carm. xxi.390). His mode of life was monastic in the fullest sense, and he calls his house a monastery (Ep. v.15). The inmates dressed themselves in hair cloth with a rope girdle, cut their hair in a manner studiously unbecoming, were perhaps not careful as to personal cleanliness, observed strict rules of silence and fasting, even during Easter-tide did not eat until about 3 p.m., and used mostly a vegetable diet, lying down to sleep on the ground, wrapped only in a coarse cloak or patch-work blanket, and abridging the time usually devoted to sleep (Epp. xv.4; xxii.1, 2, 3, 6; xxix. i.13; Carm. xxxv.445-497).

He seldom, if ever, left Nola, except to visit Rome once a year to join in the festival of SS. Peter and Paul, on June 29, the day of their martyrdom (|beatorum apostolorum natalem|) (Epp. xvii.2; xviii.1; xx.2; xliii.1; xlv.1; Carm. xxi.132-166; Aug. Ep. xcv.6).

The event of all the year which was the chief interest for him and his little community at Nola was the festival of St. Felix, on Jan.14. For many years he always composed a poem in honour of the day. In one of the earlier poems Paulinus tells how multitudes came from all parts of S. Italy, to be cured of their ailments or relieved of troubles, or to thank God for cures or relief already granted; how even Rome sent forth thousands on the Appian road, which became encumbered by the crowds of pilgrims, and how Nola, for a short time, became almost as populous as Rome (Ep. xiv.).

III. Third Period (a.d. c.409-431). -- Paulinus became bp. of Nola before the autumn of 410, when Alaric laid waste Campania, for St. Augustine speaks of him as being then bp. of Nola. Therasia's death perhaps took place in the latter part of 408, though Tillemont and Buse seem to place it a year or two later. The diocese of Paulinus was a small one, and appears, at any rate formerly, to have been notorious for drunkenness and immorality (Ep. xlix.14; Carm. xix.164-218). Without adopting all the glowing panegyric applied by Uranius to his behaviour as bishop, we may well believe that he shewed himself in this, as in other matters, a faithful, devout, humble, and munificent follower of his Master; and when Campania was laid waste by Alaric, a.d.410, Paulinus devoted all he had to the relief of the sufferers and captives. The barbarian occupation did not last long, and from this time until his death, in 431, there are few events to record in the life of Paulinus. A letter from St. Augustine, probably in 417, seems to hint at a tendency on the part of Paulinus to adopt some, at least, of the erroneous doctrines of Pelagius, with whom he had been on friendly terms (Aug. Ep.186 i.1, and xii.41). After the death of Zosimus, in Dec.418, the appointment of his successor in the see of Rome becoming a matter of dispute, the emperor Honorius summoned a council of bishops at Ravenna, and afterwards at Spoletum, and invited Paulinus to attend, but he excused himself on the first occasion on the ground of ill-health and was probably prevented by the same cause from appearing on the second (Baronius, 419, 19, 20). After residing 36 years in retirement at Nola, a period devoted both by himself, and during her lifetime by his wife, to unsparing self-denial, religious observances, and works of piety and charity without stint, he died June 22, a.d.431, aged 77 or 78. An account of his last illness and death has been left by Uranius in a letter addressed to Pacatus. |Three days before his death he was visited by two bishops, Symmachus (of Capua) and Acyndinus, by whose conversation he was much refreshed. He desired the sacred mysteries to be exhibited before his bed, so that the sacrifice having been offered in their company, he might commend his own soul to the Lord, and at the same time recall to their former peace those on whom, in the exercise of church discipline, he had pronounced sentence of exclusion from communion. When this was over, he called for his brothers, by whom the bystanders thought that he meant the bishops who were present; but he said that he called for Januarius bp. of Naples and Martin of Tours (both of them deceased), who, he said, had promised to be with him. He then raised his hands to heaven, and repeated Psalm cxx. [cxxi.], 'I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills,' etc. . . . Later in the day, as if the hour for vespers were come, he recited slowly, with outstretched hands, the words, 'I have prepared a lamp for my anointed,' Ps. cxxxi.17 [cxxxii.17]. At about the fourth hour of the night, while all were watching, the cell was shaken by an earthquake, which was felt nowhere else, and during this he expired.| He was buried in the church of St. Felix, in Pincis, and his funeral was attended even by Jews and pagans (Uran. de ob. S. Paul ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. liii.).

Writings. -- He has left behind 51 letters and 36 poems. (a) Prose. -- Of his letters, 13, some very long, are addressed to Sulpicius Severus, the first in 394, and the last in 403; 5 to Delphinus, by of Bordeaux, 6 to Amandus his successor, 4 to Augustine, 3 to Aper and Amanda, 2 to another Amandus and Sanctus, 2 to Rufinus, 2 to Victricius, 3 to persons unknown, and single letters to Alethius, Alypius, Desiderius, Eucherius and Gallus, Florentius, Jovius, Licentius, Macarius, Pammachius, Romanianus, Sebastianus, besides the account of the martyrdom of Genesius which is a sort of postscript to the letter to Eucherius and Gallus (Ep.51). It does not appear that he ever saw Sulpicius after his visit to Spain, but the love of the two for each other never failed. His letters to Delphinus and Amandus exhibit his deep humility and cheerful humour, but are chiefly remarkable for the earnest request made to both, that they will offer their prayers on behalf of his deceased brother, of whom he speaks with great affection but with deep regret for his neglect in spiritual matters, hoping that by their prayers he may obtain some refreshment in the other world (Epp. xxxv.; xxxvi.). Of those to St. Augustine the third is chiefly occupied with remarks on the grief of Melania for the loss of her only son Publicola, and a reply to Augustine on the condition of the soul in celestial glory, which he thinks will be one of highly exalted powers and beauty resembling the condition of our Lord after His resurrection. He asks Augustine's opinion on the subject (Ep. xiv.). In the 4th letter Paulinus asks for Augustine's opinion as a doctor of Israel on various Scripture passages according to the Latin version. (1) Ps. xv.3 [xvi.4], |sanctis . . . multiplicatae sunt infirmitates eorum, postea acceleraverunt|: who are meant by the |saints,| and how are their infirmities multiplied? (2) Ps. xvi.15, 16 [xvii.14]: what is meant by |de absconditis tuis adimpletus est venter eorum ,| and |saturati sunt porcina,| or, as he hears is read by some, |filiis.| (3) Ps. lviii.11 [lix.11], |ne unquam obliviscantur legis tuae| (Vulg. |populitui|): he cannot understand how knowledge of the law can be sufficient without faith in Christ. (4) Ps. lxvii.23, 25 [lxviii.21, 23], |Deus conquassabit capita inimicorum suorum, verticem capilli,| etc.: the last expression he thinks void of sense; though he could understand |verticem capitis,| who are the |dogs,| v.25, and what is the meaning of |ab ipso|? Some questions follow on passages in St. Paul's Epistles. (1) Eph. iv.11: what are the special functions of each order named by St. Paul? what difference is there between |pastors| and |teachers|? (2) I. Tim. ii.1, 2: what difference between |prayers| and |supplications,| etc.? (3) Rom. xi.28: how can the people of Israel be at the same time friends and enemies -- why enemies for the sake of Christians, friends for that of the fathers? (4) Col. ii.18, |nemo vos seducat in humilitate et religione angelorum.| What angels does St. Paul mean? -- if bad angels, how can there be any |humilitas| or |religio| connected with them? Paulinus thinks that heretics must be intended. (5) Col. ii.18, 21. He asks Augustine to explain these two passages, which seem to contradict each other: what |shew of wisdom| (|ratio sapientiae|) can there be in |will worship| (|superstitio|), and how can |neglect of the body| (|non parcendum corpori|) agree with |satisfying of the flesh| (|saturitas carnis|), which seems contrary to St. Paul's own practice as mentioned I. Cor. ix.27? He also asks Augustine to explain why our Lord was and was not recognized by the women and disciples on the Day of Resurrection, how He came to be known by the latter in the |breaking of bread|; what did He mean by bidding Mary not touch Him until after His ascension (John xx.17)? He supposes He meant that He was to be touched by faith hereafter, though not then by the hand. Again what did Simeon mean by his words to the Virgin Mother (Luke ii.34, 35)? What |sword| was to pierce her soul? Was it the word of God? and how could this cause the |thoughts of many hearts| to be |revealed|? These questions he doubts not that Augustine will be able to explain to him (Ep.1.). The letter of Paulinus to Pammachius is a very long one of condolence and exhortation on the loss of his wife Paulina, daughter of Paula, and sister of Eustochium. Feeling deeply for him in his loss, he nevertheless doubts whether he ought not to write more in thankfulness for the faith Pammachius has shewn in honouring her funeral, not with ostentatious pomp or gladiatorial shows, but with alms and good works, first presenting the sacred oblation to God and the pure libation (|sacras hostias et casta libamina|) with commemoration of her whom he had lost, and then providing a meal for the poor of Rome in great numbers in the church of St. Peter, following in this the example of Scripture saints, Christ Himself, and the first Christians. Faith is a greater comfort than any words of his; by its means we can walk in Paradise with the souls of the departed. Relying on the truth of Scripture we cannot doubt the resurrection, his only doubt is as to his own claim to admission into the heavenly kingdom. Yet the door, he knows, is open to all, and the departed wife of his friend is a pledge to himself of the future in Christ (Ep. xiii.; see Hieron. Ep. lxvi.). The letters of Paulinus are generally clear and intelligible, pleasing as regards style, remarkable for humility of mind, an affectionate disposition, and a cheerful, playful humour, free from all moroseness or ascetic bitterness. Many of his remarks on Scripture and other subjects show good sense and sound judgment, and, though free from any pretension to learning, prove him an industrious student and careful inquirer into the sacred writings in the Latin version.

(b) Verse. -- Paulinus wrote much in verse throughout his life, and sent many of his poems to his friends. Seventeen are more or less directly in praise of Felix, all of them dated Jan.14, the day of his death, and consequently called Natalitia, though not by Paulinus himself. The 1st (Carm. xii.) was written in Spain, but when fully intending to retire to Nola, a.d.394, the 2nd shortly after his arrival there (ib. xiii.). The 3rd describes the concourse from all parts to the tomb of Felix, and the power he manifested of casting out devils and curing diseases (ib. xiv.21-43). The 15th and 16th relate the legend of FELIX. The 17th is a Sapphic ode to Nicetas, who was about to return to his see after his visit to Nola, a.d.398 (ib. xvii.). He came a second time, a.d.402, and his visit is mentioned with much satisfaction in the 27th poem. The 18th poem, 6th in honour of Felix, describes in hexameters the discovery of his tomb, mentions the five churches built around it, and how the country people came themselves and brought their animals to be cured of maladies by the saint's influence.

A poem of 730 lines describes how the relics of martyrs had been transferred to other places than those where they died, especially the more notable among them; how Nola was honoured and benefited by the grave of Felix; and how a thief who had stolen an ornament in the church containing a figure of the cross was discovered, partly by the agency of Felix, and partly by the miraculous operation of the sacred emblem (ib. xix.). The poem last in order is dedicated to a friend whom he calls Antonius, by which name he has been thought to denote Ausonius, and consists of a discourse of the insufficiency of the old mythological systems and of the advantages of the true faith he has adopted, whose doctrines on the Trinity, final judgment, and redemption through Christ he has described, and he invites his friend to consider the blessing of eternal life open to all who accept the offer (ib. xxxvi.).

As Bose remarks, the laws of versification and prosody were undergoing a great change in his day, and either of this or of intentional neglect of those laws, the verses of Paulinus afford abundant evidence. Nor can it be said truly that they shew much poetic power, though many are graceful and pleasing, especially his letters to Ausonius and his address to Nicetas. He wrote with facility and great pleasure to himself, and frequently wrote well, but his poems cannot justly claim a high rank as poetry. Ozanam, however, expresses a very favourable opinion of them (Civilisation au cinquième siècle, vol. ii. pp.238-247). Of his amiable and affectionate disposition, love for his friends, profound humility, entire abnegation of self, earnest piety, and devotion to the service of God, sufficient evidence has been given. He was studiously orthodox on the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which he states clearly on many occasions, but seems in one letter to favour the views of the semi-Pelagians (Ep. xxix.7). He believed devoutly in the power and influence of departed saints, including their relics; his whole life from the time of his retirement to Nola may be said to turn upon this belief, which he carried, as the stories in his poems shew plainly, to the utmost bound of human credulity (Ampère, Revue des deux mondes, 1837, vol. xii. p.66, and Littérature chrétienne au cinquième siècle, vol. i. p.288).

The ed. of his works pub. by the abbé Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. lxi., contains the matter of most of the former edd. It is, however, in all matters of reference edited carelessly, and its index is exceedingly inaccurate. An account of Paulinus is given by Cave, Hist. Litt. i. p.288; Dupin, Hist. Eccl. vol. iii.; Tillemont, vol. xiv.; and Ceillier, vol. viii. Dr. Gilly (Vigilantius and his Times, Lond.1844) describes his mode of life, blaming greatly both it and his theology, though giving him full credit for his piety. In the Revue des deux mondes for 1878, vol. xxviii., is an art. by M. Gaston Boissier on a Life of Paulinus by the abbé Lagrange, pub. in 1877. Dr. Adolf Buse, professor at the Seminary of Cologne, has written a book in two vols., Paulin and seine Zeit (Regensburg, 1856), which answers fully to its title, containing all or nearly all known about him, and written with great care, moderation, and critical judgment. He avoids most of the legends, and shews that the use of bells in churches, an invention credited to him by tradition, is not due to him, nor even to the town of Nola. The latest ed. of his works is by Hartel (Vienna, 1894, 2 vols.) in the Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xxix.-xxx.; see also Hartel, Patristische Studien (Vienna, 1895), v. vi.

[H.W.P.]

Paulinus of Pella
Paulinus (12), son of a prefect (probably a vicarius) of Illyricum; born at Pella. His father soon afterwards went to Carthage as proconsul, and Paulinus was before long sent to Bordeaux to be brought up by his grandfather. In his 84th year (probably c.460) he wrote a poem called |Eucharisticon Deo sub Ephemeridis meae textu,| in which he returns thanks to God for his preservation and for many blessings throughout a long and rather eventful life. The poem throws some light on the history of his time, particularly on the movement of the northern nations. It has been erroneously attributed to St. Paulinus of Nola. It is in De la Bigne, Bibl. Patr. (App. Col.281, Paris, 1579), and was ed. by Daumius (Lips.1686). Hist. Litt. de la France, ii.363, where the events of his life are traced in some detail, from the account given in the poem itself; Alzog, Handb. der Patrol.; Ebert, Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Lit.; Cave, Hist. Litt. i.290; Teuffel, vol. ii. Cf. also J. Rocafort, De Paul Pell. vita et oeuv. (Bordeaux, 1890).

[H.A.W.]

Paulinus of Périgueux
Paulinus (13) of Périgueux (Petrocorius), a poet of the 2nd half of the 5th cent., to whom properly belong certain works sometimes attributed to St. Paulinus of Nola, viz. Vita Martini in six books, a poem, |de Visitatione Nepotuli Sui,| and a short poem composed as a dedicatory inscription for the basilica of St. Martin at Tours. Nothing can be clearly made out concerning his life or parentage, save the inference, from the name Petrocorius, that he was probably a native of Périgueux. The poem on St. Martin was probably written c.470, certainly during the episcopate of Perpetuus of Tours (who presided at the council of Tours in 461), since it is dedicated to that bishop, and is partly based on a document drawn up by him. It is mainly a rather rough versification of the Life of St. Martin by Sulpicius Severus and of parts of the dialogues of the same writer; the last book is especially interesting, as representing a formal account by the bp. of Tours of the miracles wrought at his predecessor's tomb. The short dedication poem for the new basilica was written later, at the request of Perpetuus. The poem |de Visitatione Nepotuli Sui| records a miraculous cure of the author's grandson, by the joint agency, as he appears to consider, of St. Martin and Perpetuus.

His works are, under the name of St. Paulinus of Nola, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxi. (Ebert, Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Lit.385; Cave, Hist. Litt. i.449; Teuffel, vol. ii.; Greg. Turon de Mir. B. Mart., and Ruinart's note in the Benedictine ed.) Cf. A. Huber, Die poetische Bearbietung der Vita S. Mar. durch Paul von Périgueux (Pamplon.1909).

[H.A.W.]

Paulinus, missionary to Northumbria
Paulinus (20), the first Christian missionary from Rome to Northumbria, and the bishop who begins the recognized succession in the archiepiscopal see of York.

He was sent from Rome by Gregory in 601, with Mellitus, Justus, and Rufinianus. They joined Augustine in Kent, and would take an active part in evangelizing that kingdom.

In 625 Edwin, king of Northumbria, wished to marry Ethelburga, daughter of Eadbald, king of Kent, who objected to a pagan son-in-law. A second embassy revealed Edwin's eagerness. He promised to allow the princess and her suite entire freedom in their religious worship, and even that he himself would adopt her faith, if his wise men should consider it right and just. Here was an opportunity for evangelizing Northumbria, and Eadbald sent his daughter. Paulinus accompanied the princess as her religious adviser, and, to add dignity and importance to his mission, Augustine consecrated him bishop before he set out, on July 21, 625.

At first, however, Paulinus found the king quiescent though respectful, and that the people paid no attention; while his own little party was in danger from the taint of heathenism. At the feast of Easter, 626, an attempt was made upon Edwin's life. That act probably accelerated the birth of Ethelburga's first child, a daughter, and Paulinus thanked God for the preservation of his master and mistress with such fervour that Edwin, touched at last, promised to become a Christian if he could be avenged upon those who had sent forth the assassin, and, to shew he was in earnest, permitted Paulinus to baptize the new-born princess, with eleven courtiers who chose to accompany her to the font.

Edwin obtained his revenge, but loitered over the fulfilment of his promise. Paulinus reminded the hesitating monarch of what had taken place twelve years before at Redwald's court. He laid his hand upon Edwin's head, and asked him if he remembered that sign and his pledge. Now was the time for its fulfilment. Whether Paulinus was the stranger himself, or had gathered from the queen, or some courtier, that Edwin had seen and heard all this in a dream, is a matter of doubt. A national gathering took place at Goodmanham, near York, to consider the subject, and resulted in the king, court, and many of the people becoming Christians.

Northumbria was now opened to the missionary work of Paulinus, and his time fully occupied. He made a convert of Blecca, the reeve of Lincoln, and through his means a church was erected on the summit of its hill in which Paulinus consecrated archbp. Honorius in 627. He is said soon after to have founded Southwell minster, and his appearance was described to Beda as he stood in the river baptizing convert after convert in king Edwin's presence.

Mark him, of shoulders curved, and stature tall,

Black hair, and vivid eyes, and meagre cheek.

At Donafeld, probably the modern Doncaster, amid the remains of the Roman camp, there was a Christian basilica with a stone altar, which may be ascribed to Paulinus. At Dewsbury was a stone cross with an inscription stating that he preached there; whilst at Whalley in Lancashire and near Easingwold, close to York, there were other crosses connected with his name. He is said to have baptized very many at Brafferton and Catterick. In Bernicia a streamlet called Pallinsburn in the N. of Northumberland retains the great preacher's name. He is said to have been occupied in instructing and baptizing for 36 consecutive days at Adgebrin or Yeavering. There would yet be very few churches, and these at first chiefly baptisteries on river banks. There the catechumens were taught, and thence went down with their instructor into the water below.

In 633, after six years of unceasing and successful exertion, the labours of Paulinus in the north came abruptly to a close. Edwin fell in battle at Hatfield, near Doncaster, and the disaster was so complete that the newborn Christianity of the north seemed utterly overwhelmed by the old idolatry. Paulinus thought that he owed his first duty to the widowed queen who had come with him into Northumbria, and he took her back, with her children and suite, to Kent. There he was made bp. of Rochester, which see had been vacant some time. In the autumn of 633 he received from the pope, who had not heard of the great disaster in the north, a pall designed for his use as archbp. of York. Whether or no, by virtue of the gift of this pall, he has a just claim to be considered an archbishop, he never went back to Northumbria. He is said to have been a benefactor to the monastery of Glastonbury, rebuilding the church and covering it with lead, and to have spent some time within its walls. He died Oct.10, 644, and was buried in the chapter-house at Rochester, of which place he became the patron saint. Lanfranc translated his remains into a silver shrine, giving a cross to hang over it. Among the relics in York minster were a few of his bones and two teeth, but nothing else to commemorate his great work in the north, save an altar which bore his name and that of Chad conjoined.

His life has been carefully related in Dr. Bright's Chapters of Early English Church History, and in the Lives of the Archbishops of York, vol. i., for which see a full statement and sifting of the authorities.

[J.R.]

Paulus of Samosata, patriarch of Antioch
Paulus (9) of Samosata, patriarch of Antioch, a.d.260-270. A celebrated Monarchian heresiarch, |the Socinus of the 3rd century| (so Bp. Wordsworth), deposed and excommunicated for heretical teaching as to the divinity of our Blessed Lord, a.d.269. His designation indicates that he was a native of Samosata, the royal city of Syria, where he may have become known to Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, through whom Cave and others ascribe his advancement to the highest post in the Syrian church. Dr Newman points out that the beginning of Paul's episcopate synchronizes with the commencement of the successes of Zenobia's husband Odenathus against Sapor (Asians of the Fourth Cent. p.4, n.6). Athanasius distinctly calls her Paul's patroness (Athan. Hist. Ar. c.71).

Our only knowledge of his career and character is from the encyclical letter of the bishops and clergy who condemned him. The picture of him is most unfavourable there. He is described as haughty, ostentatious, vain-glorious, worldly-minded, a lover of pomp and parade, avaricious, rapacious, self-indulgent and luxurious; as one whose manner of life laid him open to grave suspicions of immorality; and as a person originally of humble birth, who had adopted the ecclesiastical career as a lucrative speculation, and, by the abuse of its opportunities and the secular office obtained by favour of Zenobia, had amassed a large fortune. In public he affected the pomp and parade of a secular magistrate rather than the grave and modest bearing of a Christian bishop. He stalked through the forum surrounded by attendants, who made a way for him through a crowd of petitioners whose memorials he made a display of dispatching with the utmost celerity, dictating the replies without halting a moment. In his ecclesiastical assemblies he adopted an almost imperial dignity, sitting on a throne raised on a lofty tribunal (bema), with a cabinet (sekreton) for private conferences screened from the public gaze. He is said to have suppressed the psalms which were sung to Christ as God, which had ever proved a great bulwark to the orthodox faith, as modern novelties not half a century old (cf. Caius ap. Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii.129), and to have introduced others in praise of himself, which were sung in full church on Easter Day by a choir of women, causing the hearts of the faithful to shudder at the impious language which extolled Paul as an angel from heaven. By his flatteries and gifts, and by his unscrupulous use of his power, he induced neighbouring bishops and presbyters to adopt his form of teaching and other novelties. His private life is described in equally dark colours. He indulged freely in the pleasures of the table, and enjoyed the society of two beautiful young women, as spiritual sisters, |subintroductae,| and encouraged other clergymen to follow his example, to the scandal of all and the moral ruin of many. Yet, disgraceful as his life was, he had put so many under obligations and intimidated others by threats and violence, so that it was very difficult to persuade any to witness against him (Eus. H. E. vii.30).

However great the scandals attaching to Paul's administration of his episcopal office, it was his unsoundness in the faith which, chiefly by the untiring exertions of the venerable Dionysius of Alexandria, led to the assembling of the synods at Antioch, through which his name and character have chiefly become known to us. The first was held in 265, Firmilian of the Cappadocian Caesarea being the president. The second (the date is not precisely known) was also presided over by Firmilian, who, on his way to the third synod, in 269, was suddenly taken ill and died at Tarsus, the bishop of that city, Helenus, taking his place as president. In the first two synods Paul, by dialectical subtleness and crafty concealment of his real opinions (ib. vii.29), escaped condemnation. The members of the second synod heard from all quarters that his teaching was unaltered and that this could be easily proved if the opportunity were granted. A third synod, therefore, was convened at Antioch, towards the close of 269. The leading part was taken by Malchion, a presbyter of Antioch, at one time president of the school of rhetoric there. Athanasius says that 70 bishops were present (Athan. de Synod. vol. i. p. ii. p.605, ed. Patav.), Hilary says 80 (Hilar. de Synod. p.1200). Malchion, as a skilled dialectician, was chosen by them to conduct the discussion. Paul's heresy being plainly proved, he was unanimously condemned, and the synod pronounced his deposition and excommunication, which they notified to Dionysius bp, of Rome, Maximus of Alexandria, and the other bishops of the church, in an encyclical letter, probably the work of Malchion, large portions of which are preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vii.30). In it the assembled fathers announced that they had of their own authority appointed Domnus, the son of Paul's predecessor Demetrianus, to the vacant chair. The sentence of deposition was easier to pronounce than to carry out. Popular tumults were excited by Paul's partisans. Zenobia supported her favourite in his episcopal position, while the irregularity of Domnus's appointment alienated many of the orthodox. For two years Paul retained possession of the cathedral and of the bishop's residence attached to it, asserting his rights as the ruler of the church of Antioch. On the defeat of Zenobia by Aurelian towards the end of 372, the Catholic prelates represented to him what they termed Paul's |audacity.| Aurelian relegated the decision to the bp. of Rome and the Italian prelates, decreeing that the residence should belong to the one they recognized by letters of communion (ib.). The Italian bishops promptly recognized Domnus, Paul was driven with the utmost ignominy from the temporalities of the church, and Domnus, despite his irregular appointment, generally accepted as patriarch (ib.; Cyril Alex. Hom. de Virg. Deip.; Routh, iii.358).

The teaching of Paul of Samosata was a development of that of Artemon, with whose heresy it is uniformly identified by early writers. Like the Eastern heresiarch, Paul held the pure humanity of Christ, |He was not before Mary, but received from her the origin of His being| (Athan. de Synod. p.919, c. iii. s.10). His pre-existence was simply in the divine
foreknowledge. He allowed no difference in kind between the indwelling of the Logos in Christ and in any human being, only one of degree, the Logos having dwelt and operated in Him after a higher manner than in any other man. This indwelling was not that of a person, but of a quality. There is no evidence that he denied the supernatural conception of Christ. Athanasius distinctly asserts that he taught Theon ek parthenou, Theon ek Nazaret ophthenta (Athan. de Salut. adv. Apoll. t. i. p.635); but he laid no particular stress upon it. His inferior Being was ek parthenou; his superior Being was penetrated by the Logos, Whose instrumentality by it was continually advancing itself towards God, until the |Jesus Christ from below| (katothen) became worthy of union with God (ek prokotes tetheopoiesthai). Therefore, although he called Christ God, it was not as God by His nature, but by progressive development. The Deity of Christ grew by gradual progress out of the humanity. He was convicted, according to Eusebius, of asserting that Christ was mere man deemed specially worthy of divine grace (Eus. H. E. vii.27). He taught also that as the Logos is not a Person, so also the Holy Spirit is impersonal, a divine virtue belonging to the Father and distinct from Him only in conception.

It deserves special notice that Paul's misuse, |somatikos et crasso sensu,| of the term homoousios, |consubstantial,| which afterwards at Nicaea became the test word of orthodoxy, is stated to have led to its rejection by the Antiochene council (Athan. de Synodis, t. i. in pp.917, 922). This is allowed by Athanasius, though with some hesitation, and only on the testimony of his semi-Arian opponents, as he said he had not seen the original documents (ib. pp.918-920) by Hilary (de Synod. § 81, p.509; § 86, p.513) on the ground that it appeared that |per hanc unius essentiae nuncupationem solitarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et Filium praedicabat| (in which words he seems mistakenly to identify the teaching of Paul with that of Sabellius), and still more emphatically by Basil (Ep.52 ).

Dr. Newman regards Paul of Samos |the founder of a school rather than of a sect| (Arians, p.6). A body, called after him Paulianists, or Pauliani, or Samosatensians, existed in sufficient numbers at the time of the council of Nicaea for the enactment of a canon requiring their rebaptism and the reordination of their clergy on their return to the Catholic church, on the ground that orthodox formulas were used with a heterodox meaning (Canon. Nic. xix. Hefele, i.43). The learned presbyter Lucian, who may be considered almost the parent of Arianism, was a friend and disciple of Paul, and, as being infected with his errors, was refused communion by each of the three bishops who succeeded the heresiarch. The many references to them in the writings of Athanasius show that for a considerable period after the Nicene council it was felt necessary for Catholics to controvert the Samosatene's errors, and for semi-Arians to disown complicity in them (Athan. u.s.). The Paulinians are mentioned by St. Augustine as still existing (Aug. de Haer.44), though pope Innocent spoke of the heresy as a thing of the past in 414 (Labbe, ii.1275), and when Theodoret wrote, c.450, there did not exist the smallest remnant of the sect (Haer. ii.11). Cf. Epiphan. Haer.65; Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. iv. pp.289-303.

[E.V.]

Paulus II, patriarch of Antioch
Paulus (10) II., patriarch of Antioch, a.d.519-521 (Clinton, F. R.). On the expulsion of the Monophysite Severus by Justin, Paulus, a presbyter of Constantinople, warden of the hospice of Eubulus, was nominated by the emperor to the vacant see, and was canonically ordained at Antioch. He strictly attended to Justin's commands to enforce the decrees of Chalcedon, and by inserting in the diptychs the names of the orthodox bishops of that synod caused a schism in his church, many of the Antiochenes regarding the council with suspicion, as tending to Nestorianism. Clergy, laity, and resident foreigners joined in accusing him before the papal legates, who were at that time in Constantinople, of conduct unbecoming a bishop. They departed without coming to any conclusion, and the charge was repeated before Justin. Paulus, unable to clear himself, obtained leave of the emperor to retire from his bishopric, a.d.521. He was succeeded by Euphrasius. Evagr. H. E. iv.4; Theophan. p.141; Joann. Malal. lib. xvii. p.411; Eutych. ii.152; Ep. Justini, Labbe, iv.1555; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii.732.

[E.V.]

Paulus, the Black
Paulus (11), surnamed The Black, Jacobite patriarch of Antioch from about the middle of 6th cent. to 578, was a native of Alexandria (Assem. B. O. ii.331) and, like most Egyptians, a Monophysite. Before he became bishop he maintained at Constantinople a successful public dispute in the patriarchal palace with the Tritheites Conon and Eugenius (ib.329). Either Mennas or Eutychius must then have been patriarch. Paul was probably then syncellus to Theodosius, the Jacobite patriarch of Alexandria, who was in nominal exile at Constantinople, but exercising full authority over the Jacobite congregations there and in Egypt. Paul's connexion with Theodosius, and his success as a disputant, marked him out for the titular see of Antioch and the patriarchate of the whole Monophysite body, then beginning to be called Jacobites, and he was consecrated by Jacob Baradaeus himself who originated the name. We cannot feel sure that this was before 550. Paul appears in a list of celebrities flourishing in 571. All we hear of him afterwards is disastrous. The great persecution of the Monophysites by the patriarch John Scholasticus broke out at Constantinople, if the year is right, on Mar.20, 571, and Paul was one of four bishops (another being PAULUS (18)) barbarously treated by him. He was induced to leave the monastery of the Acoemetae in Constantinople for the patriarch's palace, whither the three others were also brought, under pretence of conferring on the unity of the church. The four were kept in close custody, and cruelly used until they agreed to communicate with the persecutor on his promise to eject the synod of Chalcedon from the church (John of Eph. H. E. p.42). They twice communicated with him, loudly anathematizing the obnoxious synod; but the patriarch put off his part of the compact with the excuse that he must first obtain the consent of the bp. of Rome. Thus they |fell into communion| with the deceitful |synodite,| and on their loading him with reproaches the severity of their treatment was increased and they were thrown into prison in the monastery of Beth Abraham in Constantinople, where their sufferings continued. After a time Paul was allowed to escape, and made his way to Syria, where Jacob Baradaeus received him with great displeasure, but, after keeping him 3 years in suspense, restored him to communion, probably in 575. In 578 a new patriarch of Antioch, Peter of Callinicus, was appointed, and Paul withdrew into concealment at Constantinople, where he died in 582, as detailed by John of Ephesus.

[C.H.]

Paulus of Asia
Paulus (13), surnamed of Asia, Jacobite bp. of Aphrodisias and metropolitan of Caria in the reign of Justin II. We owe our knowledge of him to the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus (Dr. R. Payne Smith's trans.). As his persecution by John Scholasticus, patriarch of Constantinople, marks a period in the history of the Monophysite body, it is important to fix its date, which in all probability was 571. The persecution fell chiefly on the numerous Monophysite monasteries, of both sexes, which had sprung up in and around Constantinople while the empress Theodora lived. These were burst into to admit the |synodite| clergy bearing the consecrated bread, of which the inmates were compelled to partake, though it was necessary in some cases to bind their hands and force it into their mouths. The chief difficulty was with the bishops, and Paul of Aphrodisias was singled out for the first example (p.13). The historian describes him as an honest and simple-minded old man, dwelling quietly in his monastery in Caria, when the patriarch had him brought to Constantinople and imprisoned in his own palace, until, overcome by harsh treatment, he was compelled to receive the communion at his hands, besides signing an act of submission, which he was not allowed to read (given by the historian), to the effect that he accepted the decrees of Chalcedon and the jurisdiction of the patriarch of
Constantinople. He was then sent back, but the |synodite| bp. of Aphrodisias had instructions to depose him from the episcopal office and consecrate him afresh to the see of the Carian Antioch, on the Meander, at the far east of the province and not very distant from Aphrodisias. All this was done, to the extreme grief and indignation of the venerable bishop, whom soon |death overtook, and his old age descended in affliction and misery to the grave| (p.16).

[C.H.]

Paulus I, bishop of Constantinople
Paulus (18) I., 6th bp. of Constantinople, elected a.d.336 (or 340), died after three exiles and two restorations c.351, four or five years after the council of Sardica. He was a native of Thessalonica, a presbyter of Constantinople, and secretary to the aged bp. Alexander, his predecessor in the see. No sooner had Alexander breathed his last than the two parties came into open conflict. The orthodox party prevailed; Paulus was elected and consecrated by bishops who happened to be at Constantinople in the Church of Peace, close to what was afterwards the Great Church of St. Sophia.

The emperor Constantius had been away during these events. On his return he was angry at not having been consulted. He summoned a synod of Arian bishops, declared Paulus quite unfit for the bishopric, banished him, and translated Eusebius from Nicomedia to Constantinople. This is thought to have been in 338. Eusebius died in 341. Paulus was at once restored by the people to his see. But the Arians seized the occasion; Theognis of Nicaea, Theodorus of Heraclea, and other heterodox bishops, consecrated Macedonius in the church of St. Paul; and again the city became the prey of a civil war. The greatly exasperated emperor was at Antioch, and ordered Hermogenes, his general of cavalry, to see that Paulus was again expelled. The people would not hear of violence being done to their bishop; they rushed upon the house where the general was, set fire to it, killed him on the spot, tied a rope round his feet, pulled him out from the burning building, and dragged him in triumph round the city.

Constantius was not likely to pass over this rebellion against his authority. He rode on horseback at full speed to Constantinople, determined to make the people suffer heavily for their revolt. They met him, however, on their knees with tears and entreaties, and he contented himself with depriving them of half their allowance of corn, but ordered Paulus to be driven from the city.

Athanasius was then in exile from Alexandria, Marcellus from Ancyra, and Asclepas from Gaza; with them Paulus betook himself to Rome and consulted bp. Julius, who examined their cases severally, found them all staunch to the creed of Nicaea, admitted them to communion, espoused their cause, and wrote strongly to the bishops of the East. Athanasius and Paulus recovered their sees; the Eastern bishops replied to bp. Julius altogether declining to act on his advice.

Constantius was again at Antioch, and as resolute as ever against the choice of the people of Constantinople. Philippus, prefect of the East, was there, and was ordered to once more expel Paulus and to put Macedonius definitely in his place. Philippus was not ready to incur the risks and fate of Hermogenes; he said nothing about the imperial order. At a splendid public bath called Zeuxippus, adjoining a palace by the shore of the Hellespont, he asked the bishop to meet him, as if to discuss some public business. When he came, Philippus shewed him the emperor's letter, and ordered him to be quietly taken through the palace to the waterside, placed on board ship, and carried off to Thessalonica, his native town. He allowed him to visit Illyricum and the remoter provinces, but forbade him to set foot again in the East. Paulus was afterwards loaded with chains and taken to Singara in Mesopotamia, then to Emesa, and finally to Cucusus in Armenia, where he died. Socr. H. E. ii.6, etc.; Soz. H. E. iii.3, etc.; Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monach.275; Mansi, Concil. i.1275.

[W.M.S.]

Paulus Edessenus
Paulus (28) Edessenus, Monophysite bp. of Edessa; consecrated a.d.510 in succession to Peter. In the first year of his episcopate he took part with Gamalinus, bp. of Perrha, against certain sectarians who refused the use of bread, water, and wine, except in the Eucharist. Justin, becoming emperor, undertook to force the decrees of Chalcedon on Severus of Antioch and his followers, and committed the task to Patricius, who came in due course to Edessa (Nov.519), and ordered Paul either to subscribe the council or resign. Paul refused, and took sanctuary in his baptistery; whence he was dragged by Patricius and sentenced to be exiled to Seleucia. Justin, however, hoping to overcome the bishop's resistance, reinstated him after 44 days. But Paul still refused to submit, and was at length deposed and banished to Euchaita in Pontus, July 522. A later imperial order placed Asclepius in the see.

Paul translated, no doubt in his days of exile, the Greek hymns of Severus and other Monophysite writers, and arranged them so as to form a Syriac hymnal. A MS. of this collection as corrected by his famous successor Jacob -- dated in the lifetime of that prelate (a.d.675), and probably written by his hand is in the Brit. Mus. (Add. MS.17134). On the death of Asclepius (June 525), Paul |repented| (as the orthodox author of the Chronicon Edessenum states) and made submission to Justinian, then acting for Justin. From him he obtained a letter supporting the petition he addressed to Euphrasius, then patriarch, praying to be restored to his see. He was accordingly permitted to return to Edessa as bp. in Mar.526. He survived this his third inauguration less than 8 months, dying on Oct.30, less than a year before Justin died. The Jacobites, however, cannot have regarded him as a renegade, for he is commemorated in their calendar on Aug.23, as |Mar Paulus, bp. of Edessa, Interpreter of Books,| a title likewise given to Jacob of Edessa.

His hymnal consists of 365 hymns; 295 being by Severus, the rest by his contemporary John Bar-Aphtunaya; abbat of Kinnesrin, John Psaltes his successor there, and others. Though the trans. is no doubt mainly Paul's work, it includes a few hymns of obviously later date. Bp. Lightfoot (Ignatius, vol. i. p.185) gives the hymns of this collection |on Ignatius| at length, with a trans.

[J.GW.]

Paulus, bishop of Emesa
Paulus (30), bp. of Emesa, one of the most deservedly respected prelates of the period of the Nestorian controversy, the contemporary of Cyril and John of Antioch, the peacemaker between the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch after the disastrous close of the council of Ephesus, a.d.431. He reached Ephesus together with John of Antioch and the other Oriental bishops, and joined in the deposition of Cyril and Memnon (Labbe, iii.597) and in all the proceedings of the Oriental party. He was one of the eight Oriental deputies despatched to the emperor with plenipotentiary powers (ib.724). His moderation in these difficult and delicate negotiations was condemned by the uncompromising Alexander of Hierapolis as proceeding from a mean desire for reconciliation at the cost of the truth (Baluz. Concil. Nov. Collect.800). Paul was a sincere lover of peace, and above all things anxious to put an end to the disputes on points of faith, the mutual violence of which was a disgrace to the church, a scandal to the faithful, and a stumbling-block to unbelievers. He was a man of vast experience in ecclesiastical matters, an accomplished theologian, possessed of great tact and courtesy, and one who -- for unblemished holiness as well as for his advanced age -- enjoyed the confidence and reverence of both parties. Weary of conflict and anxious to obtain peace, John of Antioch despatched Paul as his ambassador to Alexandria to confer with Cyril on the terms of mutual concord, a.d.432. Paul presented in his own name and John's a confession of faith originally drawn up by Theodoret. The formulary was accepted by Cyril as orthodox, and he exhibited a formulary of faith which Paul approved as consonant with the creed of the Orientals (Labbe, iii.1090). Paul was then received into communion by Cyril on exhibiting a written document acquiescing in the deposition of Nestorius, anathematizing his writings, and recognizing his successor Maximian (Cyrill. Epp.32, 40, t. ii, pp.100-102, 152). Paul was invited by Cyril to preach on the Sunday before Christmas Day and on Christmas Day itself. On the festival the chief church of the city was crowded, and Paul, having commenced with the |Gloria in excelsis Deo,| passed on to Is. vii.14, and concluded his exordium with words decisive of the whole controversy, |Mary the mother of God brings forth Emmanuel.| The test title was received with loud acclamations by the congregation, |This is the true faith|; |This is the gift of God,| which were repeated when he proceeded to enunciate the doctrine of |the combination of two perfect natures in the one Christ,| with shouts of |Welcome, orthodox bishop, the worthy to the worthy| (Labbe, iii.1095). Paul preached a third time the following Sunday, New Year's Day, 433, with equal acceptance. Portions of all these sermons are still extant (ib.1091, 1095, 1097). To quicken John's delay in accepting the terms of peace proposed by Cyril, Paul accompanied Aristolaus and a deputation of two of Cyril's clergy to Antioch, to lay before John for his signature a document recognizing Nestorius's deposition and the anathematizing of his teaching. This, eventually, was signed by John, and brought back with great joy by Paul to Alexandria (ib.1091). The happy reunion of the long-divided parties was published by Cyril, in the chief church of Alexandria, Apr.23, 433. Cyril acknowledged the receipt of John's formulary in a well-known letter -- conveyed to him by the aged
peace-maker -- commencing with the words of Ps. xcvi.11: |Laetentur caeli,| etc., by which it was subsequently known (ib.1106; Baluz.786). The time of Paul's death is uncertain. Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv. (index); Cave, Hist. Lit. i.419; Coteler. Mon. Eccl. Graec. i.48; Clinton, Fast. Rom. ii.240; Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxvii.1433; Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Clark's trans. iii.127-137.

[E.V.]

Paulus, St. called Thebaeus
Paulus (73), St. (called Thebaeus; ho Thebethen, Niceph.), Jan.10; called by Jerome the founder of the monastic life (|auctor vitae monasticae,| Ep.22, ad Eustoch; |princeps vitae monasticae,| Vit. S. Pauli, Prol.), and said to have been the first, in Egypt at least, to lead the life of a hermit, preceding even the celebrated Anthony (Rosweyd, Vitae Patrum, in Patr. Lat. lxxiii.105 and notes). He lived in the desert of the Thebaid, whither he fled in youth from the terrors of the Decian persecution, and where he died, at an extraordinary age, hale and hearty to the last (Hieron. Ep.21, ad Paul. Concordiens.). The palm-tree at the mouth of his cave supplied him with food and clothing (Vita Pauli, c.6). The ravens are said to have brought him bread, and two lions dug his grave (ib. cc.9, 13). Anthony is said to have paid him a visit shortly before his death, and ever afterwards to have worn his tunic of palm leaves on great festivals. Jerome adds (c.13), with characteristic fervour, that such a garment, the legacy of so great a saint, was more glorious than the purple of a king. Niceph. Call. H. E. ix.14; Boll. Acta SS.10 Jan. i.603; Butler, Jan.15.

[I.G.S.]

Paulus the Silentiary
Paulus (110), sometimes called |the Silentiary,| from his position as an officer of Justinian's court, wrote several epigrams preserved in the Anthologia Palatina, and some other works of minor importance; his poetical account of the buildings and dedication of the Great Church of Constantinople must, as the evidence of a contemporary, always be an important authority on the greatest effort of Byzantine church architecture. It is written in Homeric hexameters, with a dedication in iambic verse. Its vividness is much praised by Agathias, but, from his necessary avoidance of technical terms, it is not easy to follow his description of the building. Together with the ekphrasis tou ambonos, it was edited by Graefe (Lips.1822). Some assistance to its better understanding in relation to church architecture is given by Neale, Hist. of Holy Eastern Church (Intro.).

[H.A.W.]

Pegasius, bp. of Troas
Pegasius (1), bp. of Troas c.350-360. His name was found in a previously unknown letter of the emperor Julian, first published in Hermes (1875), pp.257-266. This letter gives a very interesting description of a visit paid by Julian to Troy before he became emperor. It describes the graves of Hector and Achilles, and the temple of Minerva as being still honoured with sacrifices; while the bishop of the place Pegasius seems to have acted as custodian of the temple and of the images which were in their places and in good order. He had evidently discerned Julian's tendency to paganism. Julian, upon entering the temple, recognized traces of sacrifices, and asked if the people still sacrificed to the gods. The bishop defended the practice on the analogy of the honour paid by Christians to the martyrs. The bishop turned pagan on the accession of Julian, whose letter was written to plead his cause on the ground that such converts needed encouragement. This letter is of great interest in view of modern explorations of the site of Troy. Cf. Boissier's art. on Julian in Revue des deux mondes, July 1880, pp.106-108.

[G.T.S.]

Pelagia, surnamed Margarita
Pelagia (3), surnamed Margarita, Marina, and Peccatrix, an actress of Antioch about the middle of 5th cent., celebrated for her repentance. Her history is discussed at length in the AA. SS. Boll. Oct. iv.248-268, where she is distinguished from two other Pelagias of Antioch, and Pelagia of Tarsus, martyr under Diocletian. The story of our Pelagia has been told by Jacobus, a deacon and eyewitness of her conversion. Nonnus, bp. of Edessa and successor of Ibas in that see, was once preaching at Antioch when present at a synod of eight bishops. Pelagia was then the favourite actress and dancer of Antioch, whose inhabitants had poured riches upon her and surnamed her Margarita from the number of pearls she wore. She came into the church during the sermon, to the astonishment and horror of the other bishops. Nonnus had been an ascetic of the severe order of Pachomius of Tabenna, and he addressed Pelagia with such plainness and sternness touching her sins and the future judgments of God, that she at once repented, and with many tears desired baptism, which, after some delay, was granted, the chief deaconess of Antioch, Romana, acting as sponsor for her. She finally left Antioch for a cell on the Mount of Olives, where she lived as a monk in male attire, and died some three years afterwards from excessive austerities. Jacobus the deacon, recounting a visit he paid to her there, gives a very interesting description of an anchorite's cell, such as can still be seen in many places in Ireland. She was living as an enclosed anchorite, in a cell with a window as the only communication with the external world. Her whole history is full of interesting touches, describing the ancient ritual of baptism and other ecclesiastical usages.

[G.T.S.]

Pelagianism and Pelagius
Pelagianism and Pelagius (2). The details of the early career of Pelagius, whose name is identified with the prominent subject of theological controversy of Latin Christendom in the 5th cent., are very imperfectly known from contemporary history. He is said by Augustine, Prosper, Gennadius, Orosius, and Mercator to have been a Briton. Jerome's words (|habet progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia,| Pref. lib.3 in Hieron.) may imply that he was an Irishman, the Scoti being then settled in Ireland. His name undoubtedly looks like a Grecized version of some earlier name; but the tradition that the original name of the heresiarch was Morgan (Marigena, Pelagios and that he came from Bangor in N. Wales, rests on late and untrustworthy authority. His birth probably occurred c.370. Both Orosius and pope Zosimus speak of him as a layman. He came to Rome very early in the 5th cent. If Mercator's statement is accepted, that he imbibed his opinions from Rufinus the Syrian in the episcopate of Anastasius, we must fix his arrival in Rome not later than 401. His personal character at this period is spoken of with the utmost respect by his contemporaries. His great opponent St. Augustine describes him as being generally held to be a good and holy man, and of no mean proficiency as a Christian (de Pecc. Mer. iii.1). Paulinus, bp. of Nola, who was much attached to him, esteemed him a special servant of God. Pelagius was actuated at Rome by a strong moral purpose, enforcing the necessity of a strict Christian morality as against a laxity of life content with external religious observances. To this period must be assigned his earliest 3 works: the first, in 3 books, on the Trinity; the second a collection of passages from Scripture, all bearing on Christian practice, called by Gennadius Eulogiarum Liber, by Augustine and Orosius Testimoniorum Liber; the third an exposition of the Epp. of St. Paul.

At Rome Pelagius became acquainted with Coelestius, whose name was so intimately associated with his in the subsequent controversy. Coelestius, originally an advocate, was led by Pelagius to a strict religious life, and very soon became an ardent disciple and a propagandist of his master's views. Despite the imputations of later opponents, it is evident that during his long residence at Rome Pelagius was animated by a sincere desire to be a moral reformer. The consciousness of the need of a pure and self-denying morality as an element in religion led him to lay exaggerated stress upon the native capacity of the free will of man, to form a wrong estimate of the actual moral condition of human nature, and to overlook or fatally undervalue the necessity of divine aid in effecting the restoration of man to righteousness. The first signs of his antagonism to the Augustinian theories, which were then developing and obtaining general acceptance in the Western church, are exhibited in an anecdote related by St. Augustine himself (de Dono Persev. c.53). Pelagius was violently indignant on hearing a bishop quote with approbation the famous passage in the Confessions of St. Augustine, where he prays, |Give what Thou dost command, and command what Thou wilt.| This language appeared to Pelagius to make man a mere puppet in the hands of his Creator. About the same time, apparently (a.d.405), Pelagius wrote to Paulinus (Aug. de Grat. Christi, 38). The letter is not extant, but St. Augustine, who had read it, declared that it dwelt almost entirely upon the power and capacity of nature, only referring most cursorily to divine grace, and leaving it doubtful whether by grace Pelagius meant only the forgiveness of sins and the teaching and example of Christ, or that influence of the Spirit of God which corresponds to grace proper and is an inward inspiration. Pelagius remained at Rome till c.409, when, as Alaric's invasion threatened the city, he withdrew with Coelestius to Sicily, and shortly after to Africa. He visited Hippo Regius, from which Augustine was then absent, and seems to have remained quiet at Hippo, but shortly afterwards repaired to Carthage, where he saw Augustine once or twice. Augustine was then deeply involved in the Donatist controversy, but learned that Pelagius and his friends had begun to advocate the opinion that infants were not baptized for the remission of sins, but for the sake of obtaining a higher sanctification through union with Christ. This novel doctrine appeared to Augustine to deny the teaching of the church, as it virtually involved the denial of any guilt of original sin which needed forgiveness. Augustine, pre-occupied with the Donatist errors and not ascribing much weight to the chief upholders of the new heresy, did not then write in defence of the doctrine assailed. Pelagius, after a short interval, sailed for Palestine, leaving Coelestius at Carthage. In Palestine he was introduced to Jerome in his monastery at Bethlehem. Coelestius at Carthage openly disseminated Pelagius's views, and on seeking ordination as a presbyter was accused of heresy before bp. Aurelius. A council was summoned at Carthage in 412. Augustine not being present, the accusation was conducted by Paulinus the deacon and biographer of Ambrose. The charges against Coelestius were that he taught that: (1) Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. (2) The sin of Adam hurt himself only, and not the human race. (3) Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall. (4) Neither by the death nor the fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ rise again. (5) The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does. (6) Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless, i.e. men as a matter of fact without sin. (7) Infants, even though not baptized, have eternal life.

Coelestius endeavoured to explain away some of his assertions; but his explanations were judged evasive and his doctrines condemned as unscriptural and contrary to the Catholic faith. A sentence of excommunication was passed upon him and his followers. He shortly afterwards sailed to Ephesus. The prevalence of these opinions and the efforts made to diffuse them led Augustine to denounce them. In three or four sermons delivered at this time (170, 174, 175) he devoted himself to refuting the innovating doctrines, though he does not mention their chief upholders by name. His first written treatise on the controversy was called forth by a letter from his friend Marcellinus, who was troubled by daily assaults of Pelagian disputations. The work originally consisted of two books. The first established the positions that death in man was the penalty of sin, and not a mere condition of his natural constitution; that the whole offspring of Adam was affected by his sin, and that baptism of infants was for the remission of original sin, the guilt of which they bear from their birth. In the second book Augustine argued that the first man might have lived without sin by the grace of God and his own free will; that as a matter of fact no living man is wholly free from sin, for no man wills all that he ought, to do, owing to his ignorance of what is right or his want of delight in doing it; that the only man absolutely without sin is Christ, the God-man and Mediator. Augustine added to this treatise as a third book a letter he wrote to Marcellinus when, a very few days after the compilation of the two books, he became acquainted with some fresh arguments against original sin advanced in the exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul by Pelagius, who, however, put the arguments in the mouth of another and did not avowedly express them as his own. In bks. i. and ii. Augustine never, mentions Pelagius or Coelestius by name, possible hoping they might yet be won back to orthodoxy; in bk. iii., while arguing strongly against the views of the nature of original sin propounded by Pelagius, he speaks of Pelagius with marked respect, calling him a signally Christian man, a highly advanced Christian (|vir ille tam egregie Christianus,| de Pecc. Mer. iii.6; |non parvo provectu Christianus,| ib. iii.1).

Pelagianism continued to propagate and assert itself and found many upholders in Carthage. It claimed the authority of the Eastern churches, whose tendency had always been to lay stress on the power of the human will, and, boldly retorting the accusation of innovation, it declared that the views of Augustine and the dominant party in Africa were a departure from the old orthodoxy. This roused the indignation of Augustine. In a sermon preached June 27, 413, he dealt with infant baptism and refuted some new phases of Pelagian opinion. From it we learn that the Pelagians now taught that infants were baptized, not because they needed any remission of the guilt of original or actual sin, from which they were wholly free, but that they might enter the kingdom of God and thereby obtain salvation and eternal life. The critical passage in Rom. v.12, |By one man sin entered into the world,| they interpreted to mean that Adam sinned by an act of free choice and so caused all his descendants to sin by the imitation of his example. If, they scoffingly asked, men are born sinners from a sinful parent, why are not men born righteous from believing parents who have been justified by baptism? If Adam's sin hurt those who had not sinned, why, by parity of consequence, should not the death of Christ profit those who have not believed on Him? Towards the close of his sermon Augustine read to the congregation from the epistle of their martyred bishop St. Cyprian, written a.d.255, a passage in which the judgment of the church of his day was emphatically pronounced that baptism was administered to infants for the remission of sin which they had contracted through their birth, and ended by making an earnest appeal to his opponents not to continue to maintain opinions which, being hostile to such a fundamental point of church doctrine and practice as infant baptism, must be disowned by the church as heretical. He entreated them, as friends, to see the error into which they were drifting and not to provoke a formal sentence of condemnation. About the same time he received a letter from Pelagius, who was still in Palestine, and replied in friendly and affectionate terms. This letter is preserved in Augustine's treatise de Gestis Pelagii (c.52), where Augustine points out the unfair use which Pelagius endeavoured to make of it at the synod of Diospolis.

The condemnation of Pelagianism by the synod of Carthage deterred its more prominent upholders from the continued open assertion of its doctrines, but a quiet and secret circulation of them continued. Adherents increased so greatly that Augustine professed alarm as to where the evil might break out afresh (Ep.157). Tidings of such a fresh outbreak came in 414 from Sicily, where one Hilary wrote to him that some Christians at Syracuse were asserting that man can be without sin and easily keep the commandments of God, if he will; that an unbaptized infant overtaken by death cannot possibly perish deservedly, as he is born without sin. Other opinions mentioned by Hilary as held by these Syracusans exhibit a fresh development of Pelagian thought, if they really originated from the same source. These were that a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he sell all he has, arid that it cannot avail him to keep the commandments of God if he still retains and uses his riches. Such an assertion of the need of renouncing private property as a condition of religious life was probably an exaggeration of the real teaching of the monks, Pelagius, and Coelestius. Augustine elaborately replied to Hilary, repeating many of the arguments he had before employed. About the same time he learnt that two young men of good birth and liberal education, Timasius and James, had been induced by Pelagius to renounce the world and adopt the monastic life and had adopted many of the peculiar opinions of their master. They had, however, been powerfully impressed by the arguments of Augustine on the nature of Christian grace, and forwarded him a book of Pelagius, to which they requested a detailed answer. This Augustine gave in his treatise de Naturâ et Gratiâ. The book of Pelagius, if we may rely upon the fairness of Augustine's quotations, which there is no reason to distrust, advocated in the interests of morality the adequacy of human nature for good action. It affirmed it possible to live without sin by the grace or help of God. But the grace thus recognized was the natural endowment of free will, itself the gift of God, though sometimes the conception of it was enlarged so as to include the knowledge of right conveyed by the Law. Sin was pronounced avoidable if men were to be truly accounted responsible moral agents, and sin being rather a negation than a positive entity could not vitiate human nature. When man has actually sinned, he needs forgiveness. Nature was magnified, as if the admission of a subsequent corruption was derogatory to the goodness of the original creation. All the O.T. worthies who are described as having lived righteously were quoted as proofs of the possibility of living without sin. The continuance of controversy was obviously leading Pelagius to a more formal and systematic development of his theory.

The same tendency to systematization is seen in a document of definitions or arguments attributed to Coelestius, which was communicated to Augustine by two bishops, Eutropius and Paul, as having been circulated in the Sicilian church. A series of 16, or as some condense them 14, questions is designed to point out the difficulties of the Augustinian theory and to establish the contrary theory by one ever-recurring dilemma, that either man can live entirely free from sin, or the freedom of the human will and its consequent moral responsibility must be denied. Augustine replied to this early in 415, in his treatise de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, addressed to Eutropius and Paul.

The scene of the controversy now changed from Africa to Palestine, where Pelagius had been resident for some years. In the beginning of 415 Paulus OROSIUS, a presbyter from Tarragona in Spain, came to Africa to consult Augustine as to certain questions, connected with Origenism and Priscillianism, which were rife in his native land. He had conceived an intense admiration for Augustine and became one of his most devoted disciples. Augustine describes him as quick in understanding, fluent in speech, and fervent in zeal. After giving him the instruction he required, he sent him to Jerome at Bethlehem, ostensibly to obtain further instruction, but really to watch the proceedings of Pelagius, and announce to the church in Palestine the steps taken in the African church to suppress the rising heresy. Orosius reached Palestine in June and spent a few weeks with Jerome, who was then writing his Dialogue against the Pelagians. He was invited to a synod at Jerusalem on July 28, and was asked what he could tell as to Pelagius and Coelestius. He gave an account of the formal condemnation of Coelestius by the council of Carthage in 412, and mentioned that Augustine was writing a treatise in answer to a work of Pelagius, and read a copy of the letter from Augustine to Hilary. Thereupon bp. John desired Pelagius himself to be sent for to have an opportunity of defending himself from any charges of unsound doctrine alleged. Pelagius was asked by the presbyters whether he had really taught the doctrines against which Augustine protested. He bluntly replied, |And who is Augustine to me?| This bold and contemptuous rejection of the name and authority of the great bishop whose influence was paramount in the West owing to his signal services in the Donatist controversy, roused the indignation of the presbyters, but, to the amazement of Orosius, the presiding bishop admitted Pelagius, layman and alleged heretic as he was, to a seat among the presbyters, and exclaimed, |I am Augustine here.| He proceeded to hear charges against Pelagius. Orosius said that Pelagius, according to his own confession, had taught that man can be without sin and can easily keep the commandments of God, if he will. Pelagius acknowledged that he had used such language. Orosius claimed that such doctrine should be at once denounced as untenable on the authority of the recent council at Carthage, and of the writings of Augustine, and the judgment of their own venerated neighbour Jerome recently expressed in a letter to Ctesiphon. The bishop quoted the scriptural instances of Abraham, who was bidden |to walk before God and be perfect,| and of Zacharias and Elizabeth, who were described as |walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the law blameless,| as affording a primâ facie justification of Pelagius, and argued, If Pelagius said that man could fulfil the commands of God without the aid of God, his doctrine would be wicked and worthy of condemnation, but as he maintained that man could be free from sin not without the aid of God, to deny this position would be to deny the efficacy of divine grace. Orosius proceeded to anathematize the notion of such a denial of grace, and, seeing that John was unwilling to admit a charge of heresy against Pelagius, appealed to another tribunal. Declaring the heresy to be of Latin origin and most formidable in the Latin churches, he demanded that the whole question should be referred to pope Innocent, as the chief bishop of Latin Christianity. This compromise was accepted. The whole account of the proceedings of this synod at Jerusalem is derived from the Apology of Orosius, and must be received with some deductions, having regard to the fiery and intemperate invective which the impassioned Spaniard lavishes upon Pelagius and all his followers.

A renewed effort to quell Pelagianism, the result, Pelagius says, of the influence of Jerome and a small knot of ardent sympathizers at Bethlehem, was made towards the end of 415, when two deposed Western bishops, Heros of Arles and Lazarus of Aix, laid a formal accusation against Pelagius before a synod at Diospolis (the ancient Lydda), at which Eulogius, bp. of Caesarea and metropolitan, presided. Fourteen bishops attended it -- Eulogius, John, Ammonianus, Eutonius, two Porphyrys, Fidus, Zomnus, Zoboennus, Nymphidius, Chromatius, Jovinus, Eleutherius, and Clematius. The two accusers were absent from the hearing owing to the illness of one of them, but a document (libellus) was handed in containing the principal charges. Some of the propositions it attributed to Pelagius were capable of being explained in an orthodox sense, and he did so explain them. It was objected to him that he had said that no one could be without sin unless he had the knowledge of the law. He acknowledged that he had said this, but not in the sense his opponents attached to it; he intended by it that man is helped by the knowledge of the law to keep free from sin. The synod admitted that such teaching was not contrary to the mind of the church. It was charged again that he had affirmed that all men are governed by their own will. He explained that he intended by this to assert the responsibility of man's free will, which God aids in its choice of good; the man who sins is himself in fault as transgressing of his own free will. This too was pronounced in agreement with church teaching, for how could any one condemn the recognition of free will or deny its existence, when the possibility of God's aid to it was acknowledged? It was alleged that Pelagius had declared that in the day of judgment the wicked and sinners would not be spared, and it was inferred that he had intended thereby to imply that all sinners would meet eternal punishment, even those who had substantially belonged to Christ -- it was probably implied that such teaching was a denial of the temporary purgatorial fire which was to purify the imperfectly righteous. Pelagius replied by quoting our Lord's words (Matt. xxv.46), and declared that whoever believed otherwise was an Origenist. This satisfied the synod. It was alleged that he wrote that evil did not even enter the thought of the good Christian. He defended himself by saying that what he had actually said was that the Christian ought to study not even to think evil. The synod naturally saw no objection to this. It was alleged that he had disparaged the grace of N.T. by saying that the kingdom of heaven is promised even in O.T. It was supposed that by this he had proclaimed a doctrine that salvation could be obtained by the observance of the works of the Law. He explained it as a vindication of the divine authority of the O.T. dispensation, and its prophetic character. It was alleged that he had said that man can, if he will, be without sin, and that in writing a letter of commendation to a widow who had assumed the ascetic life, he used fulsome and adulatory language which glorified her unexampled piety as superlatively meritorious. He explained that though he might have admitted the abstract possibility of sinlessness in man, yet he had never maintained that there had existed any man who had remained sinless from infancy to old age, but that a man on his conversion might continue without sin by his own efforts and the grace of God, though still liable to temptation, and those who held an opposite opinion he begged leave to anathematize not as heretics but as fools. The bishops were satisfied with this acknowledgment that man by the help of God and by grace can be with. out sin. Other propositions alleged against him, such as those condemned by the synod of Carthage in 412, he declared were not his own, but made by Coelestius and others; yet he was willing freely to disavow them. It is hard to believe that in so doing Pelagius was not pronouncing condemnation on views he had himself on other occasions maintained. Finally, Pelagius professed his belief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and in all the teaching of the holy Catholic church, and the synod acknowledged him as a Catholic and in full communion with the church. Party feeling evidently ran very high. Jerome was regarded as a chief mover in the prosecution of Pelagius, and apparently by way of vengeance a violent and outrageous assault was made upon his monastery at Bethlehem, which was ascribed to some of the Pelagian party, with what justice it is not easy to ascertain. As Neander remarks, it is not likely that Pelagius had any share in the tumultuous proceedings, as in that case evidence of the outrage would doubtless have been laid before the Roman bp. Innocent in the subsequent proceedings. Jerome, suspecting the orthodoxy of many of its members, spoke of the synod of Diospolis as a |miserable synod.| Augustine, in his treatise de Gestis Pelagii, written after he had received a full official record of the synod, argued that Pelagius had only escaped by a legal acquittal of little moral worth, obtained by evasive explanations and by his condemning the very dogmas he had before professed.

The controversy once more returned to the West. A synod of more than 69 bishops assembled at Carthage towards the close of 416. Orosius produced the accusations which had been presented against Pelagius by Heros and Lazarus. They recognized in them the same heretical opinions previously condemned at Carthage in 412, and determined to appeal to Innocent, bp. of Rome, on the great questions at issue. Granting that the synods of Jerusalem and Diospolis might have been justified in the acquittal of Pelagius on the ground of his explanations, evasions, and disclaimers of responsibility for some of the positions alleged, they called attention to the continued prevalence of doctrines which affirmed the sufficiency of nature for the avoidance of sin and fulfilment of the commandments of God (thus virtually superseding the need of divine grace), and which denied the necessity of baptism in the case of infants, as the way of obtaining deliverance from. guilt and eternal salvation. A synod at Mileum in Numidia in 416, attended by 61 bishops, wrote a letter to Innocent to the same effect, and with these two synodical letters was sent a letter from Augustine and four brother-bishops, Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius, in which they sought to discount the acquittal of Pelagius in the East at Diospolis by saying that the result had only been obtained by the accused concealing his real sentiments and acknowledging the orthodox faith in ambiguous language, calculated to deceive the Eastern prelates, ignorant as they were of the full force of Latin words, and at the mercy of an interpreter. They demanded that Pelagius should be summoned to Rome and examined afresh, to see whether he acknowledged grace in the full scriptural sense. To enable the Roman bishop to judge dispassionately of the case they forwarded the book of Pelagius, on which Timasius and James had sought the judgment of Augustine, and the book (de Naturâ et Gratiâ) which Augustine had written in reply. They specially marked some passages in Pelagius, from which they thought Innocent must inevitably conclude that Pelagius allowed no other grace than the nature with which God had originally endowed man. Innocent answered this threefold appeal in three letters written Jan.27, 417. He began each with a strong assertion of the supreme authority of his see and many expressions of satisfaction that the controversy had been referred to him for final decision. He expressed doubt whether the record of the proceedings at Diospolis he had received was authentic. The book of Pelagius he unhesitatingly pronounced blasphemous and dangerous, and gave his judgment that Pelagius, Coelestius, and all abettors of their views ought to be excommunicated.

Innocent died Mar.12, 417, and was succeeded by Zosimus, whose name seems to indicate his Eastern origin. Coelestius left Ephesus, whither he had gone on his expulsion from Africa and obtained ordination as presbyter, and proceeded to
Constantinople, whence, as he began disseminating his peculiar opinions, he was driven by its bishop, Atticus. He went at once to Rome to clear himself of the suspicions and charges urged against him. He laid before Zosimus a confession of his faith, which, after a minute and elaborate exposition of the chief articles of the Catholic faith, dealt with the controverted doctrines of grace. Treating them as really lying outside the articles of faith, he submitted himself to the judgment of the apostolic see, if in any way he had gone astray from scriptural truth. He professed his belief that infants ought to be baptized for the remission of sins in accordance with church practice, as the Lord had appointed that the kingdom of heaven could not be bestowed save upon the baptized. But he did not admit that infants derived sin by propagation; sin is not born with man, but is his own act of choice. To impute evil to human nature antecedently to any exercise of the will he held injurious to the Creator, as making Him the author of evil. Zosimus held a synod in the basilica of St. Clement. He asked Coelestius whether he condemned all the errors ascribed to him. Coelestius answered that he condemned all that Innocent had condemned, and was ready to condemn all that the apostolic see deemed heretical. Zosimus declined to pronounce a definitive sentence, but deprived and excommunicated the bps. Heros and Lazarus, who had not appeared to substantiate the charges made against the Pelagians, and after an interval of two months wrote to Aurelius and other African bishops, censuring them for the premature condemnation of Coelestius. He refused to decide upon the merits of the case until the accusers appeared before him, whilst he informed the African bishops that he had admonished Coelestius and his followers to abstain from these nice and curious questions which did not tend to edification. After the despatch of this letter Zosimus received one from Praylius, the new bp. of Jerusalem, speaking favourably of Pelagius, and with it a letter from Pelagius and a confession of faith, which he had drawn up for Innocent, but which, reaching Rome after Innocent's death, were now delivered to his successor. This letter of Pelagius is lost, and known only by quotations in Augustine. The confession of faith is extant. Like that of Coelestius, it recapitulates the great articles of the Christian faith. In it he declared that he recognized free will in such a way as that man always needs the aid of God, and charged with error both those who say with the Manicheans that man cannot avoid sin, and those who assert with Jovinian that man cannot sin. He was willing to amend his statements if he had spoken incautiously, and to conform them to the judgment of the prelate |who held the faith and see of Peter.| Zosimus had the letter and creed read in public assembly, and pronounced them thoroughly Catholic and free from ambiguity. He even spoke of the Pelagians as men of unimpeachable faith (|absolutae fidei|) who had been wrongly defamed. He wrote afresh to Aurelius and the African bishops, upbraiding them vehemently for their readiness to condemn men without a proper opportunity of defence, strongly denouncing the personal character of Heros and Lazarus as rendering them untrustworthy witnesses, and gratefully acknowledging that Pelagius and his followers had never really been estranged from Catholic truth -- a conclusion strikingly different from that of his immediate predecessor. Augustine generally passes over in silence this action of Zosimus, speaking of it as an instance of gentle dealing with the accused, and rather implying that Zosimus, with an amiable simplicity, had allowed himself to be deceived by the specious and subtle admissions of the heretics. The African bishops were not willing to accept without remonstrance this judgment in favour of opinions which long study had taught them to regard as inimical to the faith and destructive of all true spiritual life. Meeting at Carthage, they drew up a long letter to Zosimus, defending themselves from the charges of hastiness and uncharitableness, justifying the condemnation of Pelagianism pronounced by Innocent, and entreating Zosimus to inquire afresh into the doctrines of Coelestius. The subdeacon Marcellinus was the bearer of this letter. Zosimus replied in a letter, Mar.21, 418, extolling extravagantly the dignity of his own position as the supreme judge of religious appeals, but declaring that he had not taken any further steps, hinting also at a possible reconsideration. On May 1, 418, a full council of the African church, composed of 214 (others say 224) bishops, held in the basilica of Faustus at Carthage, Aurelius presiding, was unwilling to wait for a theological determination from the see of Rome, but asserted its own independence and formulated nine canons anathematizing the principal Pelagian dogmas, some of them probably being a republication of canons passed at former minor councils. Anathemas were pronounced on the doctrine that infants derive no original sin from Adam which needs expiation in baptism, and that there is some middle place of happiness in the kingdom of heaven for infants who die unbaptized. A strong protest was made against the views that the grace of God by which we are justified through Jesus Christ avails only for the forgiveness of past sin and not for aid against the commission of sin, or that grace is only the revelation of the will of God and not an inspiring principle of righteousness, or that grace only enables us to do more easily what God commands. The two concluding canons point to a peculiar application of Pelagian doctrine, which was a curious anticipation of the teaching of some modern sectaries. They reject the idea that the petition in the Lord's Prayer, |Forgive us our sins,| is inappropriate for Christian men and can only be regarded as a prayer for others, and that it can only be used as a fictitious expression of humility, not as a true confession of guilt.

Appeal was now made to the civil power. The emperors Honorius and Theodosius issued a decree banishing Pelagius and Coelestius from Rome, and pronouncing confiscation and banishment against all their followers. An imperial letter communicated this decree to the African bishops. Zosimus, whether in vacillation or in alarm at the strong force of dominant Catholic opinion now supported by the state, proceeded to investigate the subject afresh, and summoned Coelestius for fuller examination. Coelestius, seeing the inevitable result, withdrew from Rome. Zosimus thereupon issued a circular letter (epistola tractoria) confirming the decisions of the N. African church. He censured as contrary to the Catholic faith the tenets of Pelagius and Coelestius, particularly selecting for reprobation certain passages from Pelagius's Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, which since his former consideration of the case had been laid before him, and ordered all bishops acknowledging his authority to subscribe to the terms of his letter on pain of deprivation. This subscription was enforced through N. Africa under the protection of the imperial edict by Aurelius the bishop and president of the council at Carthage, and in Italy under the authority of the prefect. In Italy 18 bishops refused, and were immediately deprived. The ablest and most celebrated was Julian, bp. of Eclanum in Apulia, who entered into controversy with Augustine with much learning, critical power, and
well-controlled temper. He complained, not without some justice, that the anti-Pelagian party sought to suppress their opponents by the strong hand of imperial authority rather than convince them by an appeal to reason. He charged the Roman bishop and clergy with a complete departure from their former convictions, and, complaining that subscription to the letter of Zosimus was being enforced on individual bishops in isolation and not at a deliberate synod, demanded further discussion in a fresh council, refusing to acknowledge the dogmatic authority of the N. African church. A letter commonly supposed to be written by him was circulated in Rome, the professed object of which was to shew the mischievous consequences of the dominant anti-Pelagian doctrine; and another letter, written in the name of the 18 deprived bishops of Italy to Rufus, bp. of Thessalonica, and remonstrating against their condemnation, was probably drawn up by Julian. The two letters reached Boniface, who at the end of the year succeeded Zosimus as bp. of Rome, and were communicated by him through Alypius to Augustine, who replied in his treatise contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, addressed to Boniface, and subsequently pursued the argument against Julian, first in a treatise contra Julianum in six books, written in 421, and then in the closing years of his life in a work of which six books only were completed. Julian throughout his writings sought to cast a prejudice upon the Augustinian doctrine by raising forcible objections to its more unguarded assertions and exaggerations. He boldly challenged it as a revived form of Manicheism, implying that the early education of Augustine might still be moulding his doctrine. He objected that the Augustinian system denied the goodness of the original creation of God -- represented marriage, although a divine institution, as necessarily evil -- disparaged the righteousness of the O.T. saints -- denied free will and its consequent moral
responsibility -- and nullified belief in the forgiveness of all sins at baptism. Augustine shewed that these were unfair deductions from his statements, maintaining that the original goodness of man's nature is not incompatible with the recognition of its corruption after Adam's fall, that the O.T. did not assert the sinlessness or freedom from temptation of the saints; that free will was so vitiated by the fall that it was powerless for righteousness without the prevenient and co-operating grace of God; and that even after the forgiveness conveyed in baptism there remained the sinful element of concupiscence. Augustine could confidently and successfully appeal to the popular consciousness of Christendom, as bearing witness to man's moral impotence and his need of redemption. The experience of the human heart was, after all, a better judge of such spiritual facts than the most subtle arguments of reason and conflicting interpretations of the meaning of N.T.

The tendency of Pelagianism to underrate the necessity of the divine redemption, and to disparage the dignity of the person of the Redeemer by denying His sinless humanity, is manifested in the case of Leporius, a monk and presbyter of S. Gaul who, coming into Africa, had been reclaimed from Pelagian views by Augustine. In recanting he acknowledged that he had taught that Jesus Christ as a mere man was liable to sin and temptation, but by His own efforts and exertions without divine aid had attained to perfect holiness. Jesus had not come into the world to redeem mankind from sin, but to set them an example of holy living (Cassian, de Incarn. i.234; Gennad. de Script. Eccles.59). Thus Leporius's peculiar anthropology coloured his theological conception of the God-Man. Annianus, a deacon of Celada, wrote at the same time in defence of Pelagian views, and, at the suggestion of Orontius, one of the deposed bishops, translated the homilies of John Chrysostom on St. Matthew in the interest, he alleged, of a high morality. He claimed Chrysostom as a powerful upholder of evangelical perfection, of the integrity of human nature against any Manichean notions of its essentially evil character, and of the free will which it was the glory of Christianity to recognize in opposition to pagan ideas of fate and necessity; and as giving co-ordinate prominence to grace and free will.

Pelagianism was not wholly extinguished even in Italy by the forcible measures adopted against it both by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, for pope Leo, writing c.444, desired the bp. of Aquileia not to receive into communion any in his province suspected of the heresy before they subscribed a formal renunciation. The letters of pope Gelasius also refer to occasional outbreaks of the heresy in Dalmatia and elsewhere towards the end of the 5th cent.

Pelagianism came under the formal condemnation of the Eastern church in an incidental way. Several deposed Pelagian bishops repaired to Constantinople, where they found Coelestius. Atticus, the patriarch, had refused to receive them, but his successor Nestorius gave them a patient hearing. He wrote to Coelestinus, bp. of Rome, for information about the reasons of their condemnation and the nature of their peculiar doctrines, but received no answer. When Nestorius himself fell into disgrace because of his own heresy about the person of Christ, he was disposed to sympathize with Coelestius and his followers as the objects of persecution by a dominant party. The East had apparently not specially discussed the Pelagian controversy; its leading rulers and writers recognized the co-operation of grace and free will without narrowly determining their limits. But the general council at Ephesus in 431 joined, under the influence of Cyril, in one condemnation the tenets of Nestorius and Coelestius, while refraining from specifying them. It pronounced sentence of deposition upon any metropolitan or cleric who had held or should hereafter hold their views.

The personal history of Pelagius after the condemnation of his views by Zosimus is obscure. He is said to have died in some small town in Palestine, being upwards of 70 years old. Coelestius similarly disappears after the council of Ephesus; the time and place of his death are unknown. Julian is said to have died c.454 in an obscure town of Sicily, where he maintained himself by teaching. There is a story that in a time of famine he relieved the poor by parting with all he had. There is a tradition that in the 9th cent. the inscription was still visible on his tomb: |Here rests in peace Julian, a Catholic bishop.|

A modified form of Pelagianism, called by later scholastic writers semi-Pelagianism, arose in the closing years of Augustine's life. Its advocates were spoken of at the time of its introduction as Massilienses, as they were connected with the church of Marseilles. Its originator was John CASSIAN, commonly called a Scythian but probably a native of Gaul. He had been brought up in a monastery at Bethlehem, and after living some time with the monks of Egypt, went to Marseilles, where he founded two monasteries, one for men and one for women. He differed widely from Pelagius, for he acknowledged that the whole human race was involved in the sin of Adam and could not be delivered but by the righteousness of the second Adam; that the wills of men are prevented by the grace of God, and that no man is sufficient of himself to begin or to complete any good work. But though he admitted that the first call to salvation sometimes comes to the unwilling and is the direct result of preventing grace, yet he held that ordinarily grace depends on the working of man's own will. Augustine, at the suggestion of two lay-friends, Prosper and Hilary, in two treatises, one on the predestination of the saints, the other on the gift of perseverance, defended the doctrines of an arbitrary election and of a will determined wholly by grace, but failed to satisfy the objections felt by the church of Marseilles, and the Gallic theologians continued after the death of Augustine to regard his predestinarian views as essentially fatalistic and injurious to moral progress. The monastery of Lerins was a principal centre of opposition to ultra-Augustinian views. At length the controversy was closed in the time of CAESARIUS, bp. of Arles, an ardent admirer of St. Augustine, at a council at Arausio (Orange) in July 529. Of its 25 canons the first two, in opposition to Pelagian doctrine, declare that by the sin of Adam not only his own soul but those of his descendants were injured. The next six expound the functions of grace, affirming that the initial act of faith is not from man but from God's grace, and that we cannot without grace think or choose any good thing pertaining to salvation. Others develop the doctrine on similar lines, but not one touches the disputed question of predestination. An address appended by the prelates to the canons repudiates indignantly the belief that any are predestined to evil and asserts that without any preceding merits God inspires men with faith and love, leads them to baptism, and after baptism helps them by the same grace to fulfil His will. Pope Boniface II., who had succeeded Felix, confirmed the decrees of this Gallican council in a letter written to Caesarius. The moderation and good sense of the fathers of Orange, and their earnest desire to avoid the extravagance either of extreme predestinarianism, which would annihilate the human will, or an arrogant self-trust, which would claim to be independent of divine grace, had their reward. Their decrees met with general acquiescence, and both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism ceased to be dominant forces in Western Christendom.

Semi-Pelagianism held man in his original state to have had certain physical, intellectual, and moral advantages which he no longer enjoys. In the beginning his body was not subject to death, he had extraordinary knowledge of external nature and apprehension of the moral law, and was sinless. The sin of the first man entailed physical death and a moral corruption which was propagated to his posterity. Freedom of will to do good was not lost, but greatly impaired. The imputation of original sin is removed in baptism, and baptism is essential to salvation. Man needs the aid of divine grace for the performance of good works and the attainment of salvation. The free will of man works in cooperation with divine grace. There is no such thing as an unconditional decree of God, but predestination to salvation or damnation depends upon the use which man makes of his freedom to good. Election is therefore conditional. The merit of man's salvation is, however, to be ascribed to God, because, without God's grace, man's efforts would be unavailing. Wiggers has forcibly observed that Augustinianism represented man as morally dead, semi-Pelagianism as morally sick, Pelagianism as morally sound.

The full theory of Augustinianism in all its strong asseverations of an unconditional election and a total corruption of human nature did not retain its hold on the theology of the Western church during the succeeding centuries, nor was it ever acknowledged in the Eastern church. Men like popes Leo I. and Gregory I., in the 5th and 6th cents., and Bede in the 8th, were Augustinian, but the general tendency of the West turned in another direction, while it sternly rejected Pelagianism proper. The famous history of the monk Gottschalk, in the latter part of the 9th cent., proves how distasteful unqualified predestinarianism had become, but this lies beyond the assigned limits of this Dictionary.

Pelagianism never developed into a schism by setting up any organization external to the Catholic church. It practised no distinctive rites, it accepted all the traditional
ecclesiastical discipline. It freely retained the practice of infant baptism, though it formed a different opinion on the moral and spiritual significance of the act. It was a mode of thought which strove to win acceptance within the church, but which was successfully cast out. [[482]AUGUSTINE, § 10.] Cf. Zunnier, Pelagius in Irland (Berlin, 1902).

[W.I.]

Pelagius I., bishop of Rome
Pelagius (8) I., bp. of Rome after Vigilius, in the reign of Justinian I., a.d.555-560. A native, and deacon, of Rome, he had been appointed by pope AGAPETUS (a.d.536) as his apocrisiarius at Constantinople. Under Vigilius he again held the same office, and joined with the patriarch Mennas in moving Justinian to issue his edict for the condemnation of Origenism. After this he returned to Rome, where he was one of the two deacons of Vigilius who applied to Ferrandus of Carthage for advice after the issue of the imperial edict |de Tribus Capitulis| (c.544). Vigilius being summoned by the emperor to Constantinople in the matter of the Three Chapters, Pelagius remained as the archdeacon and chief ecclesiastic at Rome; and occupied this position when the Gothic king Totila (Dec.546) entered Rome as a conqueror and went to pay his devotions in the church of St. Peter. There Pelagius, bearing the gospels, met him, and falling on his knees said. |Prince, spare thy people.| The conqueror answered with a significant smile, |Hast thou now come to supplicate me, Pelagius?| |Yes,| he replied, |inasmuch as the Lord has made me thy servant. But now withhold thy hand from these who have passed into servitude to thee.| Moved by these entreaties, Totila forbade any further slaughter of the Romans. He also employed Pelagius, together with a layman Theodorus, in an embassy to Constantinople for concluding peace with the emperor, binding them with an oath to do their best in his behalf and to return without delay to Italy. They executed their commission and brought back Justinian's reply that Belisarius was in military command, and had authority to arrange matters (Procop. de Bell. Goth. L.3).

Pope VIGILIUS having proceeded from Sicily on his voyage to Constantinople in the early part of 547, Pelagius joined him, and appears to have acted with him in his changing attitudes of submission or resistance to the emperor's will. He proceeded to Rome after the death of Vigilius at Syracuse, and was there consecrated pope, being supported by Narses, at that time in command of Rome, who acted under the emperor's orders. The appointment was not welcome to the Romans, and there was difficulty in getting prelates to consecrate him. The real cause of his unpopularity was his consenting to condemn the Three Chapters and to support the decisions of the Constantinopolitan council. A great part of the western church still, and for many years afterwards, resolutely rejected these decisions, and the chief recorded action of Pelagius as pope is his unavailing attempt to heal the consequent schism.

In Gaul Pelagius was accused of heresy. Consequently the Frank king Childebert sent to him an ambassador, by name Rufinus, requesting him to declare his acceptance of the tome of pope Leo, or to express his belief in his own words. He readily did both, asserting his entire agreement with Leo and with the four councils, and appending a long orthodox confession of faith. But he made no mention of the fifth council, or of the necessity of accepting its decrees. He praised the king for his zeal in the true faith, and expressed the hope that no false reports about himself might occasion any schism in Gaul (Ep. xvi. ad Childebertum; Ep. xv. ad Sapaudum). He showed anxiety to conciliate Sapaudus, bp. of Arles, fearing, we may suppose, the possible defection of the Gallican church from Rome. He sent him a short friendly letter (Ep. viii.), and afterwards the pall, and conferred on him the vicariate jurisdiction over the churches of Gaul which former popes had committed to metropolitans of Arles (Epp. xi. xii. xiii.). He speaks of |the eternal solidity of that firm rock on which Christ had founded His church from the rising to the setting of the sun, being maintained by the authority of his (i.e. Peter's) successors, acting in person, or through their vicars.| And, as his predecessors had, by the grace of God, ruled the universal church of God, he commits to the bp. of Arles, after their example, and according to ancient custom, supreme and exclusive jurisdiction over Gaul, as vicar of the apostolic see. It cannot but strike readers of church history during the reign of Justinian I., and especially of the proceedings of the 5th council, how little the theory of universal spiritual dominion thus enunciated agreed with facts. Indeed Pelagius himself was really throughout his popedom acting as the creature of the emperor, who had defied and overruled the authority of the Roman see.

[J.B -- Y.]

Pelagius II., bishop of Rome
Pelagius (9) II., bp. of Rome after Benedict I., under the emperors Tiberius, Constantine, and Mauricius, from Nov.578 to Feb.590. He was a native of Rome, the son of Winigild, and supposed from his father's name to have been of Gothic extraction. At the time of Benedict's death the Lombards, already the masters of a great part of N. Italy, were besieging Rome. Consequently the new pope was consecrated without the previous sanction of the emperor (required since the reign of Justinian). Partly, perhaps, to excuse this informality, as well as to solicit aid against the Lombards, the new pope, as soon as possible after his accession, sent a deputation to Tiberius, who had become sole emperor on the death of Justin II. in Oct.578. It was doubtless now that Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory the Great, was first sent to Constantinople as apocrisiarius of the Roman see. On Oct.4, 584, Pelagius sent him a letter to represent the lamentable condition of Italy and the imminent danger of Rome from the Lombard invasion; Longinus, the exarch at Ravenna, having been appealed to in vain. Gregory is directed to press on the emperor the urgent need of succour. He returned to Rome probably a.d.585 (Joan. Diac. ib.).

The emperor Mauricius had engaged the Frank king, Childebert II., for a large pecuniary reward to invade Italy and drive out the Lombards. The invasion (probably a.d.585) resulted in a treaty of peace between the Franks and Lombards (Greg. Turon. vi.42; Paul. Diac. de Gest. Longob. iii.17).

On the retirement of Childebert from Italy, it appears that Smaragdus exarch of Ravenna had also concluded a truce with the Lombards (Epp. Pelag. ii.; Ep. i. ad Episcopos Istriae). Pelagius took advantage of it to open negotiations with the bishops of Istria, who still remained out of communion with Rome in the matter of the Three Chapters. In the first of his three letters he implores them to consider the evil of schism, and return to the unity of the church. He is at pains to vindicate his own faith, and to declare his entire acceptance of the four great councils and of the tome of pope Leo, by way of shewing that his acceptance of the 5th council, and his consequent condemnation of the Three Chapters, involved no departure from the ancient faith. He does not insist on condemnation of the Three Chapters by the Istrian bishops themselves. He only begs them to return to communion with Rome, notwithstanding its condemnation of the same; and this in a supplicatory rather than imperious tone. In his second letter he declares himself deeply grieved by their unsatisfactory reply to his first, and by their reception of his emissaries. He quotes St. Augustine as to the necessity of all churches being united to apostolic sees, but further cites Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesiae (with interpolations that give the passages a meaning very different from their original one) in support of the peculiar authority of St. Peter's chair. Finally he calls upon the Istrians to send deputies to Rome for conference with himself, or at any rate to Ravenna for conference with a representative; whom he would send; and mentions (significantly, as appears in the sequel) that he has written to the exarch Smaragdus on the subject. Another, called his third, letter to Elias and the Istrian bishops, is a treatise on the Three Chapters, composed for him by Gregory (de Gest. Longob. iii.20). Appeals and arguments proving of no avail, Pelagius seems to have called on the civil power to persecute; for Smaragdus is recorded to have gone in person to Grado, to have seized Severus, who had succeeded Elias in the see, together with three other bishops, in the church, carried them to Ravenna, and forced them to communicate there with the bp. John. They were allowed after a year (Smaragdus being superseded by another exarch) to return to Grado, where neither people nor bishops would communicate with them till Severus had recanted in a synod of ten bishops his compliance at Ravenna (Paul. Diac. ib. iii.27; cf. Epp. S. Greg. l.1, Ep.16).

Towards the end of the pontificate of Pelagius (probably a.d.588), a council at Constantinople, apparently a large and influential one, and not confined to ecclesiastics, dealt with Gregory patriarch of Antioch, who being charged with crime, had appealed |ad imperatorem et concilium| (Evagr. H. E. vi.7). This council is memorable as having called forth the first protest from Rome, renewed afterwards more notably by Gregory the Great, against the assumption by the patriarch of Constantinople of the title |oecumenical.| The title itself was not a new one; as an honorary or complimentary one it had been occasionally given to other patriarchs; and Justinian had repeatedly designated the patriarch of Constantinople |the most holy and most blessed archbishop of this royal city, and oecumenical patriarch| (Cod. i.7; Novell. iii. v. vi. vii. xvi. xlii.). Nor do we know of any previous objection, and at this council it may have been ostentatiously assumed by the then patriarch, John the Faster, and sanctioned by the council with reference to the case before it, in a way that seemed to recognize jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople over that of Antioch. In Nov.589 a destructive inundation of the Tiber at Rome was followed by a plague, described as |Pestis inguinaria,| of which Pelagius II. was one of the earliest victims, being attacked by it in the middle of Jan.590 (Greg. Turon. l. x. c.1). According to Anastasius he was buried on Feb.8 in St. Peter's.

[J.B -- Y.]

Peregrinus, called Proteus
Peregrinus (1), called Proteus, an apostate from Christianity and a Cynic philosopher of the 2nd cent., whose history has been satirically told by Lucian. That Lucian's work is not a romance is amply shown by the account of Peregrinus in Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic. viii.3, and xii.11. Other writers, pagan and Christian alike, of the same age, mention him: e.g. Tatian, Orat. adv. Graec. c.25; Athenagoras, pro Christian. c.26, who tells us of his statue at Parium; Maximus Tyrius, Diss. iii.; Tertull. ad Mart. c.4; and Eusebius in his Chronicon (ii.178 seq. ed. Schöne); cf. also I. Sörgel, Lucian's Stellung zum Christenthum, (1875); Schiller's Geschichte der Kaiserzeit, p.685; and Bernays' tract Lucian u. die Kyniker (Berlin, 1879). The story of Peregrinus is therefore a very valuable illustration of the life of the 2nd cent. He was born at Parium on the Hellespont, where he committed various crimes, including parricide. He escaped justice by transferring his property to the municipality and then passed over to Palestine, where he became a Christian, and, according to Lucian's account, a bishop or at least a presbyter. He was imprisoned for the faith, and Lucian's words are a valuable and truthful description of the conduct of the Christians towards confessors generally. Crowds attended at the prison and ministered to Peregrinus, bribing the gaolers to obtain admission. The |Teaching of the Twelve Apostles| takes elaborate precautions against wandering apostles and prophets, who desired only to make gain of the gospel. Such a false apostle was Peregrinus. His real character was, however, discovered, and he was excommunicated. He then became a Cynic philosopher, a sect which Lucian specially abhorred, and resided at Rome. He made use of the licence permitted them to abuse the emperor himself, but was speedily expelled by the prefect Urbis. He next passed into Greece, and there, to obtain a greater notoriety, burned himself alive at the Olympic games at the 236th Olympiad a.d.165. Cf. Strabo, xv. i.73; Dion Cassius, liv.9; and Lightfoot On Colossians, p.394. Dr. Lightfoot has elaborately discussed the relations between the stories of Peregrinus and St. Ignatius (SS. Ignatius and Polycarp, t. i. pp.129, 133, 331, 450, ii. pp.206, 213, 306, 356; cf. Salmon's Introd. to the N.T. pp.522, 650). [[485]LUCIAN.]

[G.T.S.]

Perpetua, Vibia
Perpetua (1), martyr. Her full name was Vibia Perpetua. She was well born, and had a father, mother, and two brothers living, one of whom was a catechumen. When 22 years old, married, and having lately borne a son, she was arrested. Her father repeatedly strove to induce her to recant. She and her fellow-martyrs were baptized after their arrest, possibly before their transference to the public prison (cf. Le Blant, Actes des Mart. v.9, p.48). They were attended in prison, according to the ancient discipline of the Carthaginian church, by the deacons Tertius and Pomponius (Cypr. Ep.15 ad Mart.). Perpetua now had her first vision, indicative of her future passion. She saw a ladder reaching to heaven guarded by a dragon. Saturus mounted first and then Perpetua followed. They came to a large garden, where was a shepherd clad in white, feeding sheep, while thousands in white robes stood around. The shepherd gave Perpetua a piece of cheese, which she received |junctis manibus| and consumed, the attendants saying |Amen.| Their trial came soon after. The procurator Hilarianus condemned the martyrs to the beasts. After her condemnation Perpetua saw a vision of her brother Dinocrates, who had died when 7 years old, in punishment, but after continuous prayer for him it was revealed to her that he was removed into a place of refreshment and peace. This vision is a clear proof that prayers for the dead were then used by that party in the church which claimed to adhere most closely to apostolic usages. Some, supposing Dinocrates unbaptized, have claimed it as sanctioning the view that the unbaptized dead are helped by prayer, a view which Augustine combated in de Orig. Animae, lib. i. c.10, and lib. iii. c.9, where he maintains that Dinocrates was in punishment for sins committed after baptism. The day before her passion Perpetua saw another vision, wherein she triumphed over an Egyptian, representing the devil, and was rewarded with a golden branch. When the hour of execution arrived the tribune attempted to array the men as priests of Saturn, the women as priestesses of Ceres, but yielded to the indignant protest of Perpetua. She suffered by the sword, after being tossed by an infuriated cow, but, like Blandina at Lyons in a like trial, was unconscious of any pain (cf. Dodwell's Diss. in Iren. ii. §§ 43, 46; Routh's Rel. Sacr. i.360).

The precise year of the martyrdom is uncertain, the succession of African proconsuls being very imperfectly known. We know that they suffered in the year when Minucius Timinianus was proconsul. One circumstance would seem to fix the date as 202, or at farthest 203. There was as yet no general persecution of the Christians, such as soon after developed itself. The freedom enjoyed by the clergy and Christians in ministering to the martyrs is sufficient proof of this. Why, then, did they suffer? On Jan.1, 202, Severus was at Antioch, where he appointed himself and Caracalla consuls for the ensuing year. During the month he proceeded by easy stages through Palestine to Egypt, exercising severities upon the Jews which, according to Renan, have left their mark on the Talmud (Mission de Phénicie, pp.775, 776). He published an edict forbidding any fresh conversions from Paganism to Judaism or Christianity, while imposing no penalties on original Jews or Christians. Now all our martyrs were fresh converts, and as such seem to have suffered under this edict.

Some have maintained that Tertullian wrote the Acts of these martyrs. The style is in many places very similar to his. The documents themselves profess to have been written mainly by Perpetua and Saturus, and completed for publication by a third party, who cannot now be identified. Tertullian certainly knew the Acts, as he refers to the vision of Perpetua in de Animâ, c.55.

All our MSS. are in Latin; yet Aubé (Les Chrét. dans l'Emp. Rom. p.615) thinks they may have been originally written in Greek. One MS. represents Perpetua as speaking Greek to bp. Optatus in Paradise. The Acts contain very many Greek words in Latin characters, whence we may at least conclude that the martyrs were bi-lingual, and that Greek was then very current at Carthage. The Acts contain some interesting illustrations of ancient church customs. The kiss of peace is given (c. x.). The Trisagion is sung, and in Greek (c. xii.). In the language of the visions we can clearly see the influence of the Apocalypse (cf. specially c. xii.). The Acts were discovered and pub. by Lucas Holstenius in 17th cent. They are in Ruinart's Acta Sincera; Acta SS. Boll. Mart. i. p.630; Munter, Primord. Eccles. Afric. p.226; and trans. in Clark's Ante-Nicene Series, Cyprian's works, t. ii. p.276. Aubé, l.c. p.521, has pub. another version from a Parisian MS. The best ed. of all three texts is ed. by J. A. Robinson, The Passion of St. Perpetua, with intro., notes, and original Lat. text of the Scillitan martyrdom, in Camb. Texts and Studies, i.2 (1901).

[G.T.S.]

Perpetuus, St., archbp. of Tours
Perpetuus, St., 6th archbp. of Tours, between St. Eustochius and St. Volusianus, both of whom were his relatives, belonged to one of the great senatorial families of the Auvergne. He possessed considerable wealth (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. x.31), was a student of sacred literature and a friend of the two poets Sidonius Apollinaris and Paulinus of Périgueux (Sid. Apoll. Ep. vii.9; Paul. Petr. de Vita S. Mart. vi.; Ep. ad Perpet. Migne, Patr. Lat. lxi.1064 sqq., 1071). Consecrated in 460 or 461, he presided in 461 over the council of Tours, convoked to check the worldliness and profligacy of the Gallic clergy (Mansi, vii.943 sqq.). The council of Vannes, c.465, over which apparently he also presided, had the same object (ib.951 sqq.). His principal work was the construction of the great church of St. Martin at Tours. The one built by Briccius had become too small for the fame and miracles of the saint. Of the new one which replaced it at 550 paces from the city, and to which the saint's body was translated with great ceremony (c. July 4, 473), we have, owing to its being Gregory the historian's own church, full and interesting details and measurements. (See Hist. Franc. ii.14; de Mirac. S. Mart. i.6.) A good many other churches were built by Perpetuus, notably one in honour of St. Peter and St. Paul, which he constructed to receive the roof of St. Martin's old church, as it was of elegant workmanship. Perpetuus also bestowed much care on the services. Gregory recounts the fasts, vigils and regulations for divine service instituted by him for different seasons of the year and still observed in Gregory's own time (Hist. Franc. x.31; cf. Hist. Litt. ii.626-627; Ceillier, x.438, 441). Perpetuus died in 490 or 491, after an episcopate of 30 years (Hist. Franc. ii.26; x.31), and, as he had asked in his will, was buried in the church he had built, at the feet of St. Martin (Epitaphium in Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii.755, and elsewhere).

[S.A.B.]

Petilianus, a Donatist bishop
Petilianus, an eminent Donatist bishop, probably a native of Constantina or Cirta, chief town of Numidia, born of parents who were Catholics; but while still a catechumen carried off against his will by the Donatists, received by baptism into their community, and subsequently made, between 395 and 400, their bishop in Cirta. (Aug. c. Lit. Petil. ii.104, 238; Serm. ad pleb. Caesar. de Emerito, 8.) He had practised as a lawyer with great success, so as to obtain the name of the Paraclete, the identity of which name with that of the Holy Spirit, if we may believe St. Augustine, was flattering to his vanity (c. Lit. Petil. iii.16, 19). He took a prominent part in the Conference, a.d.411, as one of the seven managers on the Donatist side, but after this we hear no more of him. (Aug. Retract. ii.34; c. Lit. Petal. ii.40, 95; iii.57, 69; Optatus, Opp. Mon. Vet. Don. liii.) About 398 or 400, Augustine in a private letter invited some of the leaders of the Donatist sect in Cirta to discuss the questions at issue between them and the church, an invitation rejected by them with contempt. But when he was in the church of that place, together with Absentius (Alypius) and Fortunatus its Catholic bishop, a letter addressed by the Donatist bp. (Petilianus, but without a name) to his own clergy, proposing to cut off communion with the Catholic church, was put into Augustine's hands. This proposal seemed so monstrous as to make him doubt whether the letter could have proceeded from a man of Petilian's reputation, until he was assured that this was the case. Lest his silence should be misunderstood, he undertook at once to reply to it, though it was plainly imperfect and ought to be presented in a complete state. The writer accuses the Catholics of making necessary a repetition of baptism, because, he says, they pollute the souls of those whom they baptize. The validity of baptism in his view depends on the character of the giver, as the strength of a building depends on that of the foundation. He quotes Ecclus. xxxiv.30 , applying to his own sect the words |wise men| (Matt. xxiii.34), and interpreting the word |dead| to mean an ungodly person; he charges the Catholics with persecution and |tradition,| and makes an insinuation about Manicheism. To these charges, Augustine replied in his first book against Petilian.

In his second book, for the benefit of the less acute among his brethren (tardiores patres) he takes one by one the charges of Petilian, whose letter had by that time been received in a complete state. The statements, 108 in number, including applications of Scripture passages, and an appeal to the Catholics, are answered by Augustine seriatim. The arguments used by Petilian come under two principal heads, but are much intermixed, and contain much coarse vituperation. (1) The inefficacy of baptism by ungodly persons. (2) The iniquity of persecution. In his reply Augustine shews, (1) The true nature of baptism. Those who fall away after baptism must return, not by rebaptism, but by repentance. (2) As to persecution. Augustine denies the charge, and retorts it upon his adversary, whose partisans, the Circumcellions and others, were guilty of persecution. (3) In near connexion with the last question comes that of appeal to the civil power; Augustine shews that the Donatists themselves appealed to Constantine, and took advantage of the patronage of Julian. (4) Language of Scripture and of the church perverted.

Of a second letter from Petilian only some passages quoted by Augustine are extant, but it appears from Augustine's reply to have contained no new arguments but much personal abuse (Possidius, Indiculus, iii.).

In close connexion with these letters is the treatise of St. Augustine on the Unity of the Church, written between the second and third of them, and intended to answer the question, |Where is the church?|

In the inquiry of 411 at Carthage Petilian took a leading part and was chiefly remarkable for ingenious quibbling and minute subtlety on technical details of procedure -- using, in short, as Augustine said afterwards, every artifice in order to prevent real discussion; and on the third day losing his temper and insulting Augustine personally in a coarse and vulgar manner; appearing throughout as a pettifogging advocate, adroit but narrow, dishonest and suspicious of dishonesty in others; spinning out the time in matters of detail, taking every advantage he could, fair or unfair, and postponing, though with much ostentatious protest to the contrary, the real matters in dispute. See Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), pp.64 ff.

[H.W.P.]

Petronilla, saint and virgin
Petronilla (1), saint and virgin. According to the legend related in the letter attributed to Marcellus, son of the prefect of the city, and incorporated in the apocryphal Acts of SS. Nereus and Achilleus, she was the daughter of St. Peter, was struck with palsy by her father and afterwards restored to health by him. Her great beauty led count Flaccus to fall in love with her and come with soldiers to take her by force as his wife. She rebuked him for coming with an armed band, and desired him, if he wished her as his wife, to send matrons and virgins on the third day to conduct her to his house. He agreed, and she passed the three days in prayer and fasting with her foster-sister Felicula, and on the third day died, after receiving the sacrament, and the women brought by Flaccus to escort her home celebrated her funeral. She was buried on the estate of Flavia Domitilla, on the road to Ardea, a mile and a half from Rome (Acts SS. May, iii.10, 11, vii.420-422).

The legend seems to have originated (see Lightfoot, S. Clement, 259-262) from the combination of two elements: (i) the Manichean apocryphal story mentioned by St. Augustine (c. Adimantum, xvii. Op. viii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. xlii.161) that St. Peter by his prayers caused his daughter to be struck with palsy (the account in St. Augustine implies also her restoration to health by her father); (ii) the existence in the Christian cemetery of Flavia Domitilla of a sarcophagus inscribed with the words AURELIAE (or AUREAE) PETRONILLAE FILIAE DULCISSIMAE. Petronilla was assumed to be a diminutive of Petros; the inscription, it was imagined, had been engraved by the apostle himself. Later writers, e.g. Baronius, felt the supposition that St. Peter had a daughter to be a difficulty, and explained filia as a spiritual daughter, as St. Peter speaks of St. Mark as his son. Petronilla, however, is really derived from Petronius or Petro; and the founder of the Flavian family, the grandfather both of the emperor Vespasian and his brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, the head of that branch of the Flavii to which the supposed converts to Christianity belonged, was T. Flavius Petro of Reate. Petronilla therefore was probably one of the Aurelian gens, several of whom are shewn by the inscriptions discovered by De Rossi to have been buried in the same cemetery, and was by the mother's side a scion of the Flavian family, and therefore related to Flavia Domitilla, the owner of the land over the cemetery, and was probably, like her, a Christian convert.

Probably on account of her assumed relationship to St. Peter she was held in high veneration. Though the subterranean basilica constructed by pope Siricius between 391 and 395 contained the tombs of the martyrs SS. Nereus and Achilleus, it was in her honour it was dedicated, and there her body remained in its sarcophagus till in 757 it was translated by pope Paul I. to the Vatican and placed in what had been the mausoleum of the Christian emperors, close to St. Peter's (Liber Pontificalis in Patr. Lat. cxxviii.1139).

Cav. de Rossi discovered and excavated the ancient basilica of St. Petronilla, determined the original positions of her sarcophagus and the tombs of SS. Nereus and Achilleus, and found a fresco, probably of the first half of the 4th cent. (Bull.1875, 16), which represents St. Petronilla, designated in it a martyr, conducting one of her votaries to Paradise. A chamber was discovered (Athenaeum, Mar.4, 1882) in these catacombs, its style of decoration, akin to the Pompeian, shewing its great antiquity. The inscription which had been over the door, written in characters of the Flavian era, is AMPLIATI, which suggests that this might be the tomb of the Ampliatus to whom St. Paul alludes (Rom. xvi.8). An interesting account of these discoveries and a discussion of the legend of St. Petronilla and the history of her cultus is in Cav. de Rossi's papers (Bullettino di Archeologia Christiana, 1865, 46; 1874, 1, 68, 122 ; 1875, 1-77; 1878, 125-146; 1879, 1-20, 139-160; 1880, 169), and in vol. iv. of Roma Sotterranea.

[F.D.]

Petrus, St., archbp. of Alexandria
Petrus (4) I., St., archbp. of Alexandria, succeeded Theonas, a.d.300. He had three years of tranquil administration, which he so used as to acquire the high reputation indicated by Eusebius, who calls him a wonderful teacher of the faith, and |an admirable specimen of a bishop, alike in the excellence of his conduct and his familiarity with Scripture| (Eus. viii.113; ix.6). Then came the Diocletian persecution, and in the early part of 306 Peter found it necessary to draw up conditions of reconciliation to the church, and of readmission to her privileges, for those who through weakness had compromised their fidelity. The date is determined by the first words of this set of 14 |canons| or regulations, |Since we are approaching the fourth Easter from the beginning of the persecution,| i.e. reckoning from the Lent of 303. (This is overlooked in Mason's Persecution of Diocletian, p.324, where these |canons| are assigned to 311.) The substance of these remarkable provisions (given at length in Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, iv.23 ff.) is as follows. (1) Those who did not give way until extreme tortures had overstrained their powers of endurance, and who had been for three years already |mourners| without being admitted to regular penance, might communicate after fasting 40 days more with special strictness. (2) Those who, as Peter phrases it, had endured only the |siege of imprisonment,| not the |war of tortures,| and therefore deserved less pity, yet gave themselves up to suffer some affliction for |the Name,| although in prison they were much relieved by Christian alias, may be received after another year's penance. (3) Those who endured nothing at all, but lapsed under sheer terror, must do penance for four years. (4) is not, strictly speaking, a canon, but a lamentation over lapsi who had not repented (Neale, i.98). Peter cites the cursing of the fig-tree, with Is. lxvi.24; Is. lvii.20. (5) Those who, to evade trial of their constancy, feigned epilepsy, promised conformity in writing, or put forward pagans to throw incense on the altar in their stead, must do penance for six months more, although some of them had already been received to communion by some of the steadfast confessors. (6) Some Christian masters compelled their Christian slaves to face the trial in their stead: such slaves must |shew the works of repentance| for a year. (7) But these masters who, by thus imperilling their slaves, shewed their disregard for apostolic exhortations (Eph. vi.9; Col. iv.1), must have their own repentance tested for three more years. (8) Those who, having lapsed, returned to the conflict, and endured imprisonment and tortures, are to be |joyfully received to communion, alike in the prayers and the reception of the Body and Blood, and oral exhortation.| (9) Those who voluntarily exposed themselves to the trial are to be received to communion, because they did so for Christ's sake, although they forgot the import of |Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us,| etc., and perhaps did not know that Christ Himself repeatedly withdrew from intended persecution, and even at last waited to be seized and given up; and that He bade His disciples flee from city to city (Matt. x.23), that they might not enhance their enemies' guilt. Thus Stephen and James were arrested; so was Peter, who |was finally crucified in Rome|; so Paul, who was beheaded in the same city. (10) Hence, clerics who thus denounced themselves to the authorities, then lapsed, and afterwards returned to the conflict, must cease to officiate, but may communicate; if they had not lapsed, their rashness might be excused. (11) Persons who, in their zeal to encourage their fellow-Christians to win the prize of martyrdom, voluntarily avowed their own faith, were to be exempted from blame; cf. Eus. vi.41, fin. Requests for prayer on behalf of those who gave way after imprisonment and torture ought to be granted: |no one could be the worse |for sympathizing with those who were overcome by the devil or by the entreaties of their kindred (cf. Passio S. Perpet.3; S. Iren. Sirm.3 ; Eus. viii.9). (12) Those who paid for indemnity are not to be censured ; they shewed their disregard for money; and Acts xvii.9 is here quoted. (13) Nor should those be blamed who fled, abandoning their homes -- as if they had left others to bear the brunt. Paul was constrained to leave Gaius and Aristarchus in the hands of the mob of Ephesus (Acts xix.29, 30); Peter escaped from prison, and his guards died for it; the Innocents died in place of the Holy Child. (14) Imprisoned confessors in Libya and elsewhere had mentioned persons who had been compelled by sheer force to handle the sacrifices. These, like others whom tortures rendered utterly insensible, were to be regarded as confessors, for their will was steadfast throughout; and they might be placed in the ministry. These |canons| were ratified by the council in Trullo, c.2, a.d.692, and so became part of the law of the Eastern church. (Cf. Eus. Mart. Pal.1 ; Passio SS. Tarachi et Probs, c.8, in Ruinart, Act. Sinc. p.467; C. Ancyr. c.3.)

Very soon after these |canons| were drawn up the persecution was intensified by the pagan fanaticism of Maximin Daza. Peter felt it his duty to follow the precedents he had cited in his 8th canon and the example of his great predecessor Dionysius by |seeking for safety in flight| (Burton, H. E. ii.441). Phileas, bp. of Thmuis, and three other bishops were imprisoned at Alexandria; and then, according to the Maffeian documents, Meletius, being himself at large, held ordinations in their dioceses without their sanction |or that of the archbishop,| and without necessity (Hist. Writings of St. Athanasius, Oxf.1881, Introd. p. xxxix). Peter, being informed of this lawless procedure, wrote to the faithful in Alexandria: |Since I have ascertained that Meletius, disregarding the letter of the martyred bishops, has entered my diocese, taken upon himself to excommunicate the presbyters who were acting under my authority . . . and shewn his craving for pre-eminence by ordaining certain persons in prison; take care not to communicate with him until I meet him in company with wise men, and see what it is that he has in mind. Farewell| (Routh, Rel. Sac. iv.94).

Maximin, besides presiding over martyrdoms in Palestine (a.d.306, 307, 308), practised other enormities at Alexandria (Eus. viii.14; Burton, ii.451). During Peter's retirement his habits had become more strictly ascetic. He continued to provide |in no hidden way| for the welfare of the church (Eus. vii.32). The phrase ouk aphanus is significant, as it points to the well-understood system of communication whereby a bp. of Alexandria, although himself in hiding, could, as did Athanasius, make his hand felt throughout the churches which still owned him as their |father.| Probably Peter's return to Alexandria, and the formal communication of the Meletians above mentioned, took place after a toleration-edict, which mortal agony wrung from Galerius in Apr.311. This edict constrained Maximin to abate his persecuting energy; but he soon again harassed his Christian subjects, and encouraged zealous heathen municipalities to memorialize him |that no Christians might be allowed to dwell among them| (ib. ix.2). Thus at the end of Oct.311 |the Christians found themselves again in great peril| (Burton); and one of the first acts of Maximin's renewed persecution was to smite the shepherd of the flock at Alexandria. Peter was beheaded (Eus. vii.32), |in the ninth year of the persecution| (311), by virtue of a |sudden| imperial order, |without any reason assigned| (ix.6).

Johnson and Routh reckon as a |fifteenth| canon what is, in fact, a fragment of a work on the Paschal Festival. In it Petrus says it is usual to fast on Wednesday, because of the Jews |taking counsel for the betrayal of the Lord|; and on Friday, |because He then suffered for our sake.| |For,| he adds, |we keep the Lord's day as a day of gladness, because on it He rose again; and on it, according to tradition, we do not even kneel.| The custom of standing at prayer on Sunday was again enforced by the Nicene council (c.20; Bright, Notes on the Canons of the First Four Councils, p.73).

[W.B.]

Petrus II., archbp. of Alexandria
Petrus (5) II., archbp. of Alexandria, succeeded Athanasius in May 373. To promote the peaceful succession of an orthodox bishop, Athanasius, being requested to recommend one who could be elected by anticipation, named Peter, whom Gregory Nazianzen describes as honoured for his wisdom and grey hairs (Orat.25.12), |who had been a companion of his labours| (Theod. iv.20), and, in Basil's phrase, his spiritual |nursling| (Ep.133); and who, in conjunction with another presbyter, when they were passing through Italy to Egypt in 347, had accepted from the notorious Arian intriguers Valens and Ursacius a written attestation of their desire to be at peace with Athanasius, when his cause was for the time triumphant (Athan. Hist. Ar.26). The clergy and magistrates assented to the nomination; the people in general applauded; the neighbouring bishops came together to attend the consecration, in which, according to a |fragment| of Alexandrian history, the dying archbp. took the principal part (cf. Theod. l.c.; and Hist. Aceph. ap. Athan.). Five days afterwards (May 2) Athanasius died, and Peter took possession of |the evangelical throne.| But the Arians seized the opportunity for which they had been waiting, and employed, as in 340, the agency of a pagan prefect. Palladius, by means of bribes, assembled a |crowd of pagans and Jews| and beset that same church of Theonas within which Syrianus had all but seized Athanasius in 356. Peter was commanded to withdraw; he refused; the church doors were forced, and the brutal orgies described in Athanasius's Encyclical were repeated: a youth in female dress danced upon the altar; another sat naked on the throne, and delivered a mock sermon in praise of vice (cf. Peter ap. Theod. iv.22 with Greg. Naz. Orat. l.c.). At this point Peter quitted the church; Socrates says that he was seized and imprisoned (iv.21), but his own narrative points the other way. It proceeds to describe the intrusion of the Arian Lucius. Peter tells us that the pagans esteemed Lucius as the favourite of Serapis, because he denied the divinity of the Son; and dwells on the brave confessorship (1) of 19 priests and deacons whom Magnus, after vain attempts to make them Arianize, transported to the pagan city of Heliopolis in Phoenicia, sending also into penal servitude 23 monks and others who expressed their sympathy; (2) of 7 Egyptian bishops exiled to Diocaesarea, a city inhabited by Jews, while some other prelates were |handed over to the curia,| their official immunity from onerous curial obligations being annulled in requital of their steadfastness in the faith. Damasus of Rome, hearing of this new persecution, sent a deacon with a letter of communion and consolation for Peter; the messenger was arrested, treated as a criminal, savagely beaten, and sent to the mines of Phenne. Peter adds that children were tortured, and intimates that some persons were actually put to death or died of cruel usage, and that, after the old usage in pagan persecutions, their remains were denied burial. The narrative illustrates at once the theology, ritual, and electoral customs of the Egyptian church. Peter puts into the mouth of the 19 confessors an argument, quite Athanasian in tone, from the eternity of the Divine Fatherhood (cf. Athan. de Decr. Nic.12): like Athanasius, he there insists that God could never have existed without His |Wisdom| (cf. Orat. c. Ar. i.14; disowns a materialistic conception of the gennesis (cf. de Decr. Nic.11; Orat. c. Ar. i.21); quotes the Arian formula en hote ouk en (|once the Son was not,| cf. Orat. c. Ar. i.5, etc.); and represents the Homoousion as summarizing the purport of many texts (cf. de Decr. Nic.20).

Peter refers to the invocation of the Holy Spirit at the Eucharistic consecration, and intimates that monks used to precede a newly arrived bishop, chanting the Psalms. When describing the uncanonical intrusion of Lucius, he refers to the three elements of a proper episcopal election, as fixed by |the institutions of the church| -- (1) the joint action of the assembled bishops of the province, (2) the vote (psepho) of |genuine| clergy, (3) the request of the people (aitesei, the Latin suffragium, as Cyprian uses it, Ep.55.7, speaking of the same threefold process, |de clericorum testimonio, de plebis . . . suffragio, et de sacerdotum . . . collegio|; and for the |requests| of the people, sometimes urgently enforced, see Athan. Apol. c. Ar.6). Peter remained for some time in concealment, whence he wrote his encyclical (Tillem. vi.582); he afterwards went to Rome, and was received by Damasus, as Julius welcomed Athanasius in 340. He remained at Rome five years, gave information as to Egyptian monasticism (Hieron. Ep. cxxvii.5), and was present, as bp. of Alexandria, at a council held by Damasus, probably in 377, for the condemnation of the Apollinarians. Timotheus, whom Apollinaris had sent to Rome, and Vitalis, bishop of the sect in Antioch, were included in the sentence pronounced against their master (cf. Soz. vi.25 with Theod. v.10); and Facundus of Hermiane, in his Defence of the Three Articles, quotes part of a letter addressed by Peter to the exiled Egyptian confessors at Diocaesarea. |I ask your advice,| he writes, |under the trouble that has befallen me: what ought I to do, when Timotheus gives himself out for a bishop, that in this character he may with more boldness injure others and infringe the laws of the Fathers? For he chose to anathematize me, with the bps. Basil of Caesarea, Paulinus, Epiphanius, and Diodorus, and to communicate with Vitalis alone| (Pro Defens. Trium. Capit. iv.2). Here Peter treats Paulinus, not Meletius, as the true bp. of Antioch, this being the Alexandrian view. His relations with Basil were very kindly; their common love and reverence for Athanasius drew them into a correspondence (Basil, Ep.133, written in 373); and a letter of Basil's in 377 has an interest for the church-history of the time (Ep.266). It appears that the Egyptian |confessors| had hastily received into their communion the gravely-suspected disciples of Marcellus of Ancyra. This had troubled Basil. Peter had heard of it, but not from Basil; and had remonstrated with his exiled subordinates. Moreover, Basil's enemy Dorotheus, visiting Rome to enlist Western sympathies in favour of MeIetius as against Paulinus, met Peter in company with Damasus. Peter fired up at the name of Meletius and exclaimed, |He is no better than a Arian.| Dorotheus, angered in his turn, said something which offended Peter's dignity and Peter wrote to Basil, complaining of this and of his silence in regard to the exile's conduct. Basil answers in effect: |As to the first point, I did not care to trouble you, and I trust it will come right by our winning over the Marcellians; as to the second, I am sorry that Dorotheus annoyed you, but you who have suffered under Arians ought to feel for Meletius as a fellow-sufferer, and I can assure you that he is quite orthodox.|

Peter's exile ended in the spring of 378. The troubles of Valens with the Goths encouraged the prelates he had banished to act for themselves. Fortified by a letter of commendation from Damasus, Peter returned to Alexandria; the people forthwith expelled Lucius, who went to Constantinople; and Peter was thenceforth undisturbed in his see. Jerome taxes him with being too easy in receiving heretics into communion (Chron.); and in one celebrated affair of another kind, his facility brought him no small discredit. Early in 379 he had not only approved of the mission of Gregory of Nazianzus to act as a Catholic bishop in Constantinople, but had formally authorized it, had |honoured| Gregory |with the symbols of establishment| (Carm. de Vita Sua, 861), and thereby apparently claimed some supremacy over Constantinople (Neale, Hist. Alex. i.206). Yet ere long he allowed himself to become the tool of the ambitious Maximus, who pretended to have been a confessor for orthodoxy, and thus perhaps reached Peter's weak side. He aimed at |securing the see of Constantinople; and Peter, contradicting himself in writing,| as Gregory words it (de Vita Sua, 1015), commissioned some Egyptian prelates to go to Constantinople and consecrate Maximus. The scheme failed disgracefully: Maximus had to leave Constantinople, and after attempting in vain to propitiate Theodosius, went back to Alexandria and tried to intimidate Peter, |putting the old man into a difficulty| (ib.1018), but was expelled by secular force. Peter reconciled himself to Gregory, who panegyrized him as |a Peter in virtue not less than in name, who was very near heaven, but remained in the flesh so far as to render his final assistance to the truth,| etc. (Orat.34.3). Peter died Feb.14, 380. In ignorance of this event, Theodosius, a fortnight after wards, named him with Damasus as a standard of Catholic belief in the famous edict of Thessalonica (Cod. Theod. xvi.1, 2; see Gibbon, iii.363). He was succeeded by his brother Timotheus.

[W.B.]

Petrus, surnamed Mongus
Petrus (6), surnamed Mongus (Stammerer), Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, ordained deacon by Dioscorus, and said to have taken part in the outrages against Flavian at the Latrocinium (Mansi, vi.1017). On the death of the Monophysite patriarch Timotheus Aelurus in 477, and in the absence of the orthodox Salofaciolus whom he had displaced, the Monophysites determined to place Peter in the see. The emperor Zeno, indignant at the boldness of the Monophysites (Neale, Hist. Alex. ii.17), ejected Peter, and ordered his expulsion from Alexandria (Mansi, vii.983-985). Accordingly, Peter was driven out of Egypt; John, surnamed Talaia, steward of the great church, was chosen patriarch, but neglected to announce his accession to Acacius, who, piqued by this omission, prevailed on Zeno to expel John, and to restore Peter on condition that he should support an attempt to promote doctrinal unity without enforcing the authority of the council of Chalcedon. Zeno ordered Talaia to be expelled from Alexandria and Peter Mongus enthroned after accepting the HENOTICON, or instrument of unity (a.d.482). This was addressed to the bishops, clergy, monks, and laymen of the Alexandrian patriarchate; it recognized the creed of |the 318| at Nicaea as |confirmed by the 150| at Constantinople, the decisions of the council of Ephesus, together with the 12 articles of Cyril; it employed language as to Christ's consubstantiality with man which Cyril had adopted in his |reunion with the Easterns|; it rejected the opposite theories of a |division| and a |confusion| in the person of Christ, and included Eutyches as well as Nestorius in its anathema. Instead of renewing the explicit censure directed by Basiliscus in a previous circular against the council of Chalcedon, Zeno employed an ambiguous phrase, |We anathematize every one who thinks or ever has thought differently, either at Chalcedon or at any other synod,| words which might be explained as pointed at those who were admitted to communion at Chalcedon after disclaiming Nestorianism, while, as their adversaries alleged, they were still Nestorians at heart. At the same time all recognition of that council was omitted (Evagr. iii.14; Liberat. c.18, and note thereon; Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii.149). Peter was accordingly enthroned amid a great concourse, at Alexandria. His instructions were to unite all parties on the basis of the Henoticon. This, for the time, be effected at a public festival, when as patriarch he preached to the people, and caused it to be read (Evagr. iii.13; Liberat. c.18). In letters to Acacias, the patriarch of Constantinople, and pope Simplicius, he professed to accept the council of Chalcedon (Liberatus); and by playing the part of a time-server (kothornos, Evagr. iii.17) disgusted the thorough-going Monophysite John, bp. of Zagylis in Libya, and various abbats and monks of Lower Egypt, who raised a tumult in the Caesarean basilica (Liberat. u.s.). Peter could not afford to quarrel with them, and probably thought himself secure enough to shew his hand. (See Valesius on Evagr. iii.16. He accordingly anathematized the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of pope Leo, substituted the names of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus for those of Proterius and Timotheus Salofaciolus on his diptychs, and gratified his own vindictiveness by taking the body of Salofaciolus from its place among the buried patriarchs and |casting it outside the city| (Liberat.; cf. Felix. ap. Mansi, vii.1076. This caused a great excitement; the earnest Catholics renounced Peter's communion; and tidings of this turn of events disturbed the mind of Acacius, who sent to Alexandria for an authentic account. Peter then surpassed himself in an evasive letter, which Evagrius has preserved. Acacius was glad to accept his explanations, as he could not afford to break with Mongus; but he had now to deal with the clear head and resolute will of pope Felix II. (or III.), the successor of Simplicius, who listened readily to the complaints of the exiled Talaia and other Egyptian bishops (Evagr. iii.20) against Peter, and sent two bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, to Constantinople to denounce Peter and summon Acacius to defend himself before a council at Rome. The legates were partly coaxed and partly frightened into communicating with the resident agents of Peter at
Constantinople, and brought back to Rome letters in which Zeno and Acacius assured Felix that Peter was an orthodox and meritorious prelate (Evagr. iii.20; Mansi, vii.1055, 1065, 1081). Their weakness was punished by deposition; and Felix, with his synod, proceeded not only to anathematize Peter as an |Eutychian| usurper, but even to excommunicate the bp. of Constantinople as his patron (July 28, 484). He then wrote again to Zeno, desiring him to |choose between the communion of Peter the apostle and that of Peter the Alexandrian| (Mansi, vii.1066). Nothing daunted, Acacius broke off communion with Rome and upheld Peter to the last, although he must have felt his conduct highly embarrassing, for Peter again anathematized the proceedings of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, and those who would not accept the writings of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus (Evagr. iii 22). He expelled certain orthodox bishops, and, from one named John, transferred the abbacy or hegumenate of Diolchos to his friend Ammon (Liberat.). These proceedings being reported to Zeno, he sent Cosmas to rebuke Peter and restore peace. Peter again modified his tone, and wrote to Acacius, as if acknowledging Chalcedon. This double-dealing, becoming known in Egypt, provoked some Monophysite clerics, monks, and laymen to disown him and to meet for worship apart, omitting his name in their diptychs (Liberat.18), and these uncompromising dissentients became known as |Acephali| (Leontius, de Sectis, v.2), and obtained as their bishop one Esaias from Palestine (Liberat.). When Fravitas, or Flavitas, succeeded Acacius in 489, he wrote to both Felix (Liberat.18) and Peter (Evagr. iii.23); but after four months he died, and was succeeded by Euphemius, who, on discovering Peter's real position in regard to the council of Chalcedon, indignantly broke off all relations with him (Evagr. iii.23). A new strife between Constantinople and Alexandria was imminent, when Peter Mongus, respected by none, died at the end of Oct.490 (Le Quien, ii.422), leaving behind numerous works (Neale, ii.24).

[W.B.]

Petrus, surnamed Fullo
Petrus (10) (surnamed Fullo, |the Fuller|), intruding patriarch of Antioch, 471-488, a Monophysite, took his surname from his former trade as a fuller of cloth. Tillemont shews considerable skill in harmonizing various statements of his earlier life (Empereurs, t. vi. p.404). He considers that Peter was originally a member of the convent of the Acoimetae, which he places in Bithynia on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, and being expelled thence for dissolute life and heretical doctrine, passed over to Constantinople, where he became a parasite to persons of distinction, by whom he was introduced to Zeno, the future emperor, the son-in-law of Leo, whose favour he secured, obtaining through him the chief place in the church of St. Bassa, at Chalcedon. Here his true character having speedily become known, he fled to Zeno, who was then setting out for Antioch as commander of the East. Arriving at Antioch a.d.463, Peter's unbridled ambition soared to the patriarchal throne, then filled by Martyrius, and having gained the ear of the rabble, be adroitly availed himself of the powerful Apollinarian element among the citizens and the considerable number who favoured Eutychian doctrines, to excite suspicions against Martyrius as a concealed Nestorian, and thus caused his tumultuous expulsion and his own Election to the throne. This was in 469 or 470 (Theod. Lect. p.554; Labbe, iv.1009, 1082). When established as patriarch, Peter at once declared himself openly against the council of Chalcedon, and added to the Trisagion the words |Who wast crucified for us,| which he imposed as a test upon all in his patriarchate, anathematizing those who declined to accept it. According to the Synodicon, he summoned a council at Antioch to give synodical authority to this novel clause (Labbe, iv.1009). The deposed Martyrius went to Constantinople to complain to the emperor Leo, by whom, through the influence of the patriarch Gennadius, he was courteously received; a council of bishops reported in his favour, and his restoration was decreed (Theod. Lect. p.554; Liberat. c.18, p.122). But notwithstanding the imperial authority, Peter's personal influence, supported by the favour of Zeno, was so great in Antioch that Martyrius's position was rendered intolerable and, wearied by violence and contumely, he soon left Antioch, abandoning his throne again to the intruder. Leo was naturally indignant at this audacious disregard of his commands, of which he was apprised by Gennadius, and he despatched an imperial decree for the deposition of Peter and his banishment to the Oasis (Labbe, iv.1082). According to Theodorus Lector, Peter fled, and Julian was unanimously elected bishop in his room, a.d.471, holding the see until Peter's third restoration by Basiliscus in 475 (Theophan. p.99; Theod. Lect. p.533). During the interval Peter dwelt at
Constantinople, in retirement in the monastery of the Acoimetae, his residence there being connived at on a pledge that he would not create further disturbances (Labbe, iv.1009, 1082; Theophan. p.104). During the short reign of the usurper Basiliscus (Oct.475-June 477) the fortunes of Peter revived. Under the influence of his wife Basiliscus declared for the Monophysites, recalled Timothy Aelurus, patriarch of Alexandria, from exile, and by his persuasion issued an encyclical letter to the bishops calling them to anathematize the decrees of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii.4). Peter gladly complied, and was rewarded by a third restoration to the see of Antioch, a.d.476 (ib.5). Julian was deposed, dying not long after. Peter on his restoration enforced the addition to the Trisagion, and behaved with great violence to the orthodox party, crushing all opposition by an appeal to the mob, whom he had secured by his unworthy arts, and who confirmed the patriarch's anathemas by plunder and bloodshed. Once established on the patriarchal throne, he was not slow to stretch its privileges to the widest extent, ordaining bishops and metropolitans for all Syria. The fall of Basiliscus, a.d.477, involved the ruin of all who had supported him and been promoted by him. Peter was one of the first to fall. In 485 for the last time Peter was replaced on his throne by Zeno on his signing the Henoticon (Theophan. p.115; Theod. Lect. p.569; Labbe, iv.1207; Evagr. H. E. iii.16). He at once resumed his career of violence, expelling orthodox bishops who refused to sign the Henoticon and performing uncanonical ordinations, especially that of the notorious Xenaias (Philoxenus) to the see of Hierapolis (Theophan. p.115). He was condemned and anathematized by a synod of 42 Western bishops at Rome a.d.485, and separated from Christian communion (Labbe, iv.1123-1127). He retained, however, the patriarchate at Antioch till his death, in 488, or according to Theophanes, 490 or 491. One of his latest acts was the unsuccessful revival of the claim of the see of Antioch to the obedience of Cyprus as part of the patriarchate. After long debate the council of Ephesus in 431 had declared the church of Cyprus autocephalous. Tillem. Les Empereurs, t. vi. pp.404-407; Mém. eccl. t. xvi. passim.; Clinton, F. R. vol. ii. app. p.553.

[E.V.]

Petrus, bp. of Apamea
Petrus (12), bp. of Apamea, the metropolis of Syria Secunda, under Anastasius, c.510; a Monophysite, a warm partisan of Severus the intruding patriarch of Antioch, the leader of the Acephali, and charged with sharing in the violent and sanguinary attempts to force the Monophysite creed on the reluctant Syrian church. Peter was accused of having taken forcible possession of his see, in violation of all ecclesiastical order, not having received canonical ordination either as monk or presbyter (Labbe, v.120). The first formal complaint against him was made before count Eutychianus, governor of the province, by the clergy of Apamea, substantiated by their affidavits (ib.219, 243). In these he is charged with declaring himself the enemy of the Chalcedonian decrees, erasing from the diptychs the names of orthodox bishops and fathers, and substituting those of Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, and other heresiarchs. Evidence is given of insulting language and overbearing conduct toward his clergy, acts of violence and grossness, and intercourse with females of loose character. He was accused with Severus of having hired a band of Jewish banditti, who slew, from an ambuscade, a body of 350 orthodox pilgrims and left their corpses by the roadside (ib.119). Clergy were violently dragged from the altar by his emissaries and ruthlessly butchered if they refused to anathematize the Chalcedonian faith. On the accession of Justin, a.d.518, the bishops of Syria Secunda laid their complaints against Peter and Severus before the council assembled at the imperial city, July 518, asking the emperor to deliver them from so intolerable a tyranny (ib.215). Their prayer was granted; Peter was deposed and sentenced to exile as a Manichee -- as the Monophysites were popularly designated (Theoph. p.142). Nothing seems known of Peter between his banishment and reappearance at Constantinople with Severus, on the temporary revival of the fortunes of the Monophysites, through the influence of the empress Theodora. In 536 Mennas was appointed to the patriarchal chair, and lost no time in summoning a council to pronounce the condemnation of Monophysitism and its chief leaders, Peter and Severus being cut off from communion as men who had |voluntarily chosen the sin unto death,| and |shown no signs of repentance and a better mind| (ib.153). Justinian confirmed this sentence. Peter was forbidden to reside in or near Constantinople, or any other important city, commanded to live in complete retirement, and abstain from association with others lest he should poison them with his heresy (ib.267). Nothing more is known of him. Letters to him from Severus exist among the Syriac MSS. of the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Catal. p.559, No.5, No.20). Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii.913; Fleury, Hist. eccl. livre xxxi., 40, 44; livre xxxii., 52, 54, 57.

[E.V.]

Petrus, bp. of Edessa
Petrus (20), bp. of Edessa, succeeded Cyrus on his death, June 5, 498. During his episcopate Mesopotamia was ravaged by Cabades, king of Persia, in his endeavour to wrest the province from Anastasius. Of the horrors of this terrible time of war, pestilence, and famine, in which Edessa had a full share, being more than once besieged by Cabades, we have a moving account from a contemporary witness in the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. Peter signalized his entrance on the episcopate by several ritual reforms. He was the first to institute the feast of Palm Sunday in the church of Edessa, as well as the benediction of water on the eve of the Epiphany, and the consecration of chrism on Maundy Thursday, and he regulated the observance of other festivals (Jos. Stylit. c.32). An earthquake occurring at Edessa a.d.500, he instituted public processional litanies of the whole population (ib.36). The same year, the city and province suffering grievously from famine, he visited Constantinople to petition Anastasius personally for a remission of taxes, but was only partially successful (ib.39). The famine returning a.d.505, Peter made a second application to the emperor, who received him with frowns and rebuked him for leaving his distressed flock at such a time, but, feeling the justice of the request, remitted the taxes for the whole province, sending the order without informing Peter (ib.78). Peter died on Easter Eve, a.d.510. Asseman. Bibl. Orient. t. i. pp.268 ff., 279, 406 ff.

[E.V.]

Petrus, patriarch of Jerusalem
Petrus (28), patriarch of Jerusalem, a.d.524-544 (Clinton, F. R.; Niceph. Chron. p 410), born at Eleutheropolis, succeeded John II. (omitted by Evagr. H. E. iv.37) in 524. He manifested the same reverence as his predecessors for the celebrated ascetic St. Sabas, and frequently visited him in the desert. During his episcopate occurred the sanguinary insurrection against the Christians of the Samaritans, goaded to madness by the persecution of Justinian, offering only the alternative of baptism or rebellion (Gibbon, c.48). Many Christians were reduced to beggary. Peter therefore begged St. Sabas to go to Constantinople and lay before Justinian a petition for the remission of the taxes. His mission was successful and he was received with much joy on his return by Peter and his flock (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Sab. No.70-76). On the deposition of Anthimus, the Monophysite patriarch of Constantinople, by the single authority of pope Agapetus, then present on state business at the imperial city, and the appointment of Mennas as his successor, Agapetus issued a synodical letter dated Mar.13, 536, announcing these facts, and calling on the Eastern church to rejoice that for the first time a patriarch of New Rome had been consecrated by the bp. of Old Rome, and, together with the errors of Anthimus, stating and denouncing those of Severus of Antioch, Peter of Apamea, and the monk Zoaras. On receiving this document Peter summoned a synod at Jerusalem and subscribed the condemnation, Sept.19, 536. Agapetus having died on Apr.21 (Labbe, v.47, 275, 283). The rapid spread of Origenistic opinions in some monasteries of Palestine under the influence of Nonnus was vehemently opposed by other monastic bodies and caused serious troubles which Peter was unable to allay. The Origenists were supported by a powerful court party, headed by the abbats Domitian and Theodore Ascidas (Evagr. H. E. iv.38). The dignity and authority of Peter, a decided enemy of Origenistic doctrines, being seriously weakened, he made concessions which compromised his position. His predecessor in the patriarchal chair, Ephraim, had issued a synodical letter condemning Origen, and the Origenistic party clamoured to have his name removed from the diptychs. Peter was convinced that Justinian had been hoodwinked by the powerful abbats and was ignorant of the real character of these doctrines. He therefore instructed two of his own abbats, Gelasius and Sophronius, to bring before him a formal complaint, setting forth the heresies of Origen in detail. This document he forwarded to Justinian, with a letter describing the disturbances created by the Origenistic monks and beseeching him to take measures to quell them. The emperor, flattered by this appeal at once to his ability as a theologian and his authority as a ruler, the petition being supported by a Roman deputation, headed by Pelagius, then at Constantinople on ecclesiastical business, granted the request and issued a decree condemning the heresies of Origen, and ordering that no one should hereafter be created bishop or abbat without first condemning him and other specified heretics. The emperor's edict was confirmed by a synod convened by Mennas, and was sent for signature to Peter and the other patriarchs, a.d.541 (Vit. S. Sab. No.84; Liberat. Breviar. c.23; Labbe, v.635; Vit. S. Euthym. p.365). The object, however, was thwarted by the Origenist leaders subscribing the edict, thus sacrificing truth to self-interest. Theodore maintained his position at court and threatened Peter with deposition if he continued to refuse to receive back the expelled Origenistic monks (Vit. S. Sab. No.85). To divert the emperor's attention an attack was craftily organized by Theodore Ascidas and others against writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas of Edessa, supposed to savour of Nestorianism. They had little difficulty, backed by the powerful influence of the empress Theodora, an avowed favourer of Monophysitism, in persuading the emperor to issue an edict condemning these writings, which, from the three points on which it specially dwells, obtained the name of |Edictum de Tribus Capitulis,| or |The Three Chapters,| by which the whole controversy became subsequently known. This edict being published on the sole authority of the emperor, without synodical authority, great stress was laid on its acceptance by the bishops, especially by the four Eastern patriarchs. No one of them, however, was disposed to sign a document which seemed to disparage the conclusions of Chalcedon. Mennas yielded first; Peter's signature was obtained after a longer struggle. On the first publication of the edict he solemnly declared, before a vast crowd of turbulent monks clamouring against its impiety, that whoever signed it would violate the decrees of Chalcedon. But Justinian's threats of deposition outweighed Peter's conscientious convictions, and, with the other equally reluctant patriarchs, he signed the document (Facundus, lib. iv. c.4). He did not long survive this disgrace, and died, a.d.544, after a 20 years' episcopate. Vict. Tunun. ap. Clinton, F. R. ii.557; Fleury, Hist. eccl. livre 33; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp.264 ff.; Le Quien, Or. Christ. vol. ii.189 seq.

[E.V.]

Petrus, first bp. of Parembolae
Petrus (35), first bp. of Parembolae in Palestine, i.e. of the military stations of the Saracens in Palestine. He was originally a Greek in the service of the Persians under Izdegird. The Christians being persecuted by the Magian party, Aspebetus, as Peter was then called was commissioned to close the passes against the fugitives. Being sorry for the innocent victims of religious intolerance, he executed his duty remissly, and even assisted them in their flight. This being reported to Izdegird, Petrus in fear for his life deserted to the Romans with his son Terebo, his relatives, and all his property. Anatolius, then prefect of the East, gladly welcomed him, stationed him in Arabia, and put him in command over all the tributary Saracen tribes in those parts. Terebo, still a boy, had before his father's flight lost by paralysis the entire use of one side. After reaching Arabia the boy was warned in a dream to apply to Euthymius for cure. The application was successful, the boy recovered, and the grateful father, his brother-in-law Maris, and all his Saracen followers received baptism (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Euthym. cc.18-24; Coteler. Eccl. Graec. Monum. ii. pp.216-222). The new disciple devoted himself to a religious life; and the number of Arabian converts having become so large as to require a bishop of their own, he was recommended by Euthymius to Juvenal, bp. of Jerusalem, by whom, in defiance of the canonical rights of the old metropolitan chair of Caesarea, the new see was created, and Peter appointed its first bishop (Vit. S. Euthym. c.39; Cotel. p.231). Tillemont gives reasons for placing this event before 428 (Mém. eccl. xv.196). Peter attended the council of Ephesus in 431. His name appears among those subscribing the deposition of Nestorius and the decrees of the council (Labbe, iii.541, 692). Peter's death must be placed before 451, when his second successor John attended the council of Chalcedon, his immediate successor Auxolaus, a Eutychian, having had a very brief episcopate Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii.767; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv.378, 392, 432, 451; xv.196 203.

[E.V.]

Petrus, bp. of Sebaste
Petrus (41), bp. of Sebaste, the youngest brother of Basil the Great and Gregory Nyssen, and the last of the ten children of Basil the elder and Emmelia. His father died almost immediately after his birth, which must be placed before a.d.349 (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. Macr. ii.185). His sister Macrina, more than 20 years his senior, adopted her infant brother as her special charge, proving herself, in Gregory Nyssen's words; |not only his sister, but his father, mother, tutor, and warder| (paidagogos). When Macrina and her mother retired to their religious retreat on the banks of the Iris, Peter accompanied them, where, according to his brother, he proved all in all to them, working with them towards the angelical life. He shared the high physical and mental endowments of the family. His acquirements were very varied, and he had a natural gift for handicrafts, in which, without any direct instruction, he excelled as much as in intellectual pursuits (ib.186). He assisted by manual labour to support his mother and sister, and the large crowds attracted in time of scarcity by their reputation for charity. For some years his brother Basil was his near neighbour on the other side of the Iris, where he had established a monastery for male ascetics, in the presidency of which Peter succeeded him when in 365 he was finally recalled to Caesarea by bp. Eusebius. He was ordained presbyter by Basil, c.370 (ib.187). He was present with Macrina at their mother's death-bed, a.d.373, and was offered by her as her tenth to God (ib.186). He continued to reside in his monastery till after Basil and Macrina died in 379. In 380 he was ordained bishop, probably of Sebaste in Lesser Armenia, on the death or deposition of Eustathius. That Peter was bp. of Sebaste is accepted without question by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. ix.574). Nicephorus, however, a somewhat untrustworthy authority, is the first writer who names his see (H. E. xi.19). Theodoret (H. E. v.8) and Suidas (sub voc. Basileios, i.539) simply style him a bishop, without naming his diocese. He took part in the council of Constantinople, a.d.381 (Theod. u.s.). Olympias, the deaconess, the friend of Chrysostom, entrusted large funds to him for distribution to the poor (Pallad. p.166). Tillemont places his death between 391 and 394. The genius of Peter seems to have been rather practical than literary. Rufinus, instituting a comparison between the three brothers, says that the two younger combined equalled Basil; Gregory in word and doctrine, and Peter in the works of faith (Rufin. ii.9). Theodoret remarks that, though Peter had not received such a training in classical literature as his brothers, tes thurathen paideias ou meteilechos sun ekeinois, he was equally conspicuous in the splendour of his life (H. E. iv.30). But though undistinguished in theological literature himself, several of his brother Gregory's most important works were written at his instigation; e.g. as we learn from the proems, the two treatises supplementary to his brother Basil's Hexaemeron, the Explicatio Apologetica and the de Hominis Opificio (Greg. Nys. Opp. i.1, 44). The latter treatise was sent to Peter as an Easter gift. Gregory's great doctrinal work against Eunomius was due to his brother's entreaties that he would employ his theological knowledge to refute that heretic, and disprove the charges brought by him against Basil (ib. ii.265, 266). Gregory's original intention was to limit his refutation to the first of Eunomius's two books. But Peter wrote a letter to him, his only extant literary production (ib.168), entreating him to strike with the zeal of a Phinehas both the heretical books with the same spiritual sword, which he knew so well how to wield. The language and style of this letter shew Peter as not intellectually inferior to the more celebrated members of his family (Tillem. Mém. eccl. ix.572-580).

[E.V.]

Petrus, a solitary
Petrus (64), a solitary commemorated by Theodoret in his Religiosa Historia. By birth a Galatian, he embraced a monastic life when 7 years old, and lived to the age of 99. After visiting the holy places at Jerusalem and Palestine, he settled at Antioch, living in an empty tomb on bread and water, and keeping a strict fast every other day. His companion and attendant, named Daniel, he had delivered from an evil spirit. Theodoret relates that his mother, when a beautiful young woman of 23, failing to obtain relief from a malady in her eye from any oculist, was induced by one of her female servants to apply to Peter. Going to him dressed richly and resplendent with gold ornaments and gems, the solitary upbraided her for presuming to attempt to improve on the handiwork of her Maker, and having thus cured her of the malady of vanity and love of dress, signed her eye with the cross and she was speedily healed. Other members of her household he cured in a similar manner. When, seven years after, she became the mother of Theodoret and was given up by the physicians, Peter, having been summoned, prayed over her with her attendants and she speedily revived. She was accustomed to bring her child once every week to receive the old man's blessing. Peter made the young Theodoret a present of half his linen girdle, which was believed to have the miraculous property of relieving pain and curing sickness. The amulet was frequently lent, till kept by one of its borrowers, and so lost to the family. Theod. Hist. Rel. c. ix.; Tillem. Mém. Eccl. xv.209-213.

[E.V.]

Petrus, abbat of St. Augustine's monastery
Petrus (72), first abbat of the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, commonly called St. Augustine's, Canterbury. He was probably one of the monks who accompanied Augustine on his first journey, and therefore probably a monk of the monastery of St. Andrew at Rome. He is first mentioned by Bede (H. E. i.25) as joined with Laurentius in the mission which Augustine after his consecration sent to Rome to announce that the Gospel had been accepted by the English, and that he had been made bishop, and to put before the pope the questions which drew forth the famous |Responsiones Sancti Gregorii.| He must have returned some time before the death of Augustine and been appointed or designated by him and Ethelbert as the future head of the monastery, which at his request Ethelbert was building outside the walls of Canterbury. The building was not finished when Augustine died, but Laurentius, his successor, consecrated the new church and Peter became the first abbat. If the Canterbury computation be accepted, and on such a point it may not be baseless, Peter must have perished in the winter of 606 or of 607 at the latest. There is a notice of him in Mabillon's Acta SS. O.S.B. saec. i. pt. i. p.1; and the Bollandist Acts, Jan. t. i. pp.335, 336.

See Gotselinus, de Translatione Sti. Augustini, ap. Mab. Acta SS. O.S.B. t. ix. p.760; Elmham, ed. Hardwick, pp.92-126; Thorn, cc.1761, 1766; Hardy, Catalogue of Materials; etc. i.206, 207; Monasticon Angl. i.120.

[S.]

Philaster, bp. of Brixia
Philaster (Philastrius), bp. of Brixia (Brescia), in the latter part of the 4th cent. His successor in the see, Gaudentius, used every year to preach a panegyrical sermon on the anniversary of his death (July 18). One of these (preached on the 14th anniversary) is extant, and from its vague laudatory statements we have to extract our scanty information concerning his life and work. We learn from it that he was not a native of Brescia. From what country he came we are not told; Spain or Africa has been conjectured. He is commended for zeal in the conversion of Jews and heathen, and in the confutation of heresies, especially of Arianism; and is said to have incurred stripes for the vehemence of his opposition to that then dominant sect. He travelled much; at Milan he withstood bp. Auxentius, the Arian predecessor of St. Ambrose; at Rome he was highly successful in his defence of orthodoxy. Finally he settled down at Brescia, where he is said to have been a model of all pastoral virtues.

The only details we have for dating his episcopate or the duration of his life are that he took part as bp. of Brescia in a council at Aquileia in 381 (see its proceedings in the works of Ambrose, ii.802, or p.935, Migne); and that he must have died before 397, the year of Ambrose's death, since that bishop interested himself in the appointment of his successor. St. Augustine mentions having seen Philaster at Milan in company with St. Ambrose; this was probably some time during 384-387. Possibly Philaster had been commended to the church of Brescia by Ambrose, who would know of his opposition to Auxentius. The notices of Philaster in ecclesiastical writers are collected in the Bollandist Life (AA. SS. July 18, vol. iv. p.299). He is now chiefly interesting as the author of a work on heresies, portions of which, having been copied by St. Augustine, became stock materials for haeresiologists. Augustine having been asked by Quodvultdeus to write a treatise on heresies, refers him in reply (Ep.222) to the works of Epiphanius and Philastrius, the former of whom had enumerated 20 heresies before our Lord's coming and 60 since the ascension, the latter 28 before and 128 after. Augustine refuses to believe that Epiphanius, whom he accounts far the more learned of the two, could have been ignorant of any heresies known to Philaster, and explains the difference of enumeration as arising from the word heresy not being one of sharply defined application, thus leading one to count opinions as heresies which were not so reckoned by the other. As a matter of fact, Philaster, in his excessive eagerness to swell his list of heresies, has included many items which must be struck out unless we count every erroneous opinion as a heresy; and when he has completed his list of heretical sects called after their founders, he adds a long list of anonymous heresies, apparently setting down all the theological opinions with which he disagreed, and branding those who held them as heretics. Thus those are set down as heretics who imagined, as many excellent Fathers did, that the giants of Gen. vi.2 were the offspring of angels (c.108); thought that any uncertainty attached to the calculation of the number of the years since the creation of the world (c.112); denied the plurality of heavens (c.94) or asserted an infinity of worlds (c.115), or imagined that there are fixed stars, being ignorant that the stars are brought every evening out of God's secret treasure-houses, and as soon as they have fulfilled their daily task are conducted back thither again by the angel who directs their course (c.133). It is to be feared he regards those as heretics (c.113) who call the days of the week by their heathen names, instead of the scriptural names first day, second day, etc.; and some of his transcribers have rebelled on being asked to write down those as heretics who believe (c.154) that the ravens brought flesh as well as bread to Elijah, who surely would never have used animal food. But it is not true that all heresies enumerated by Philaster, but unnoticed by Epiphanius, are such as can be thus accounted for. When Augustine, at length yielding to his correspondent's request, wrote a short treatise on heresies, he first gives an abstract of the 60 post-Christian heresies discussed by Epiphanius, and then adds a list of 23 more from Philastrius, remarking that this author gives others also, but that he himself does not regard them as heresies.

The relation between Philaster and Epiphanius is important because of the theory of Lipsius, now generally accepted [see HIPPOLYTUS], that both writers drew from a common source, namely, the earlier treatise of Hippolytus against heresies. To establish this theory it is necessary to exclude the supposition of a direct use of Epiphanius by Philaster, which might seem the more obvious way of accounting for coincidences between the two.

It is chronologically possible for Philaster to have read the treatise of Epiphanius which appeared in 376 or 377. At what period of his life Philaster's work was written we cannot tell. The notes of time in it are confusing. He, or his transcriber, places his own date (c.106) over 400 years after Christ, and (c.112) about 430. In c.83 he speaks of the Donatists, |qui Parmeniani nunc appellantur a Parmenione quodam qui eorum nuper successit erroribus et falsitati.| Parmenianus became Donatist bp. of Carthage c.368, and died in 391; and the |nuper| would lead us to think that Philaster wrote early in this episcopate. But the form Parmenio, if not a transcriber's error, seems to shew that Philaster knew little of African affairs. Lipsius suggests that Philaster mentions Praxeas and Hermogenes as African heretics (c.54). because he got their names from Tertullian. Philaster's anonymous heresy (c.84) seems plainly identified by Augustine (Haer.70) with Priscillianism, the breaking out of which is dated in Prosper's Chronicle a.d.379. But Philaster's silence as to the name Priscillian seems to indicate an earlier date.

However, the complete independence of his treatment shews that Philaster did not use the work of Epiphanius. Eager as he was to swell his list of heresies, he does not mention the Archontici, Severiani, Encratitae, Pepuziani, Adamiani, Bardesianistae, and others, with whom Epiphanius would have made him acquainted; and in the discussion of all heresies later than Hippolytus, which are common to Epiphanius and Philaster, the two agree neither in matter nor in order of arrangement. Hence Lipsius inferred that the agreements as to earlier heresies must be explained by the use of a common source. This also accounts for a striking common feature, viz. the enumeration by both of pre-Christian heresies. Hegesippus (see Eus. H. E. iv.22) had spoken of seven Jewish sects (ton epta haireseon) and had given their names; and it would seem from the opening of the tract of Pseudo-Tertullian that Hippolytus began his treatise by declining to treat of Jewish heresies. His two successors then might easily have been tempted to improve on their original by including pre-Christian heresies.

Concerning the N.T. canon, Philaster states (c.88) that it had been ordained by the apostles and their successors that nothing should be read in the Catholic church but the law, the prophets, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 13 Epistles of St. Paul, and the seven other epistles which are joined to the Acts of the Apostles. The omission of the Apocalypse and Hebrews seems intended only to exclude them from public church reading. In c.60 he treats as heretical the denial that the Apocalypse is St. John's, and in c.69 the denial that the Ep. to the Hebrews is St. Paul's. He accounts for difficulties as to the reception of the latter as arising from its speaking of our Lord as |made| (c. iii.2), and from the apparent countenance given to Novatianism in vi.4; x.26. Consequently the public reading of this epistle is not universal: |[leguntur] tredecim epistolae ipsius, et ad Hebraeos interdum.|

The first printed ed. of Philaster appeared at Basle in 1539; the most noteworthy subsequent edd. are by Fabricius in 1721, containing an improved text and a valuable commentary, and by Galeardus in 1738, giving from a Corbey MS. now in St. Petersburg chapters on six heresies, omitted in previous eds., but which are required to make the total of 156 mentioned by St. Augustine. This complete text has been reprinted by Oehler in his Corpus Haeresiologum, vol. i. The latest ed. is by F. Marx, in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. (Vienna, 1898). See also Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Kanons (1890), ii.1, p.233.

[G.S.]

Philippus of Tralles
Philippus (1), of Tralles, asiarch at the time of the martyrdom of POLYCARP. The historic reality of this Philip has been confirmed by an inscription found at Olympia, and Lightfoot (Ignatius, i.613) printed two new inscriptions relating to him, and also by means of his full name, Caius Julius Philippus, there given, has assigned to him three other previously known inscriptions. Philip is thus proved to have been a well-known man of great wealth and munificence. Lightfoot (u.s.) shews that the date of his tenure of office indicated by these inscriptions is quite reconcilable with the date, otherwise determined, of Polycarp's martyrdom, without need of recourse to the perfectly admissible supposition, that Philip held the office of asiarch more than once. Concerning the office, see Lightfoot, ii.990, where it is shewn that the holder was |high-priest of the province of Asia| and his tenure of office to be probably four years.

[G.S.]

Philippus, the Arabian
Philippus (5), |the Arabian,| emperor, a native of Bostra in Trachonitis and a man of low birth. Having been made pretorian prefect he supplanted the younger Gordian in the affections of the soldiers, and caused him to be deposed and put to death in Mar.244. After making peace with Sapor the Persian king, he proceeded to Rome. In 248 the games to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of the foundation of Rome were celebrated with great splendour. In the summer of 249 Philip was defeated by Decius near Verona and slain. The authorities for his reign are most meagre and conflicting. The only thing that makes it important is the report that he was the first Christian emperor. The chief foundation for this is the narrative which Eusebius (H. E. vi.34) gives without vouching for its truth, namely, that Philip being a Christian wished at Easter to join in the prayers with the congregation, but that on account of the many crimes be had committed the bishop of the place refused to admit him until he had confessed and taken his place among the penitents, and that he willingly obeyed. The name of the bishop is supplied by Leontius, bp. of Antioch c.348 (quoted in Chron. Pasch.270, in Migne, Patr. Gk. xcii.668), who says it was St. Babylas of Antioch. We are also told that Origen wrote to Philip and the empress (Eus. H. E. vi.36), but the letters are not preserved, nor do we know their contents. St. Jerome also (Chronicon and de Vir. Ill.54) calls Philip the first of all Christian emperors, in which he is followed by Orosius; and Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii.10) speaks of emperors before Valerian who were reputed to be Christians, but does not mention names. Against this doubtful testimony must be set the following: (1) Constantine is called by Eusebius (Vit. Cons. i.3) the first Christian emperor. (2) No event, except his alleged penitence at Antioch, is recorded of Philip that implies he was a Christian. (3) He celebrated the millennial games with heathen rites. (4) He deified his predecessor, and was himself deified after death. (5) No heathen writer mentions that he was a Christian. (6) A year before Decius issued his edict against the Christians, and therefore while Philip was still reigning, a violent persecution had broken out at Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi.41), which would not have been allowed to go on had the emperor really been a Christian. It seems, therefore, safer to conclude with Clinton (Fasti Rom. ii.51) that Philip was not a Christian. Is there, then, any foundation for the story of Philip and St Babylas? Philip may very possibly have been at Antioch at Easter, a.d.244, on his return to Rome after Gordian's death, and perhaps feeling remorse for the way he had treated Gordian and believing that Babylas was able to purify him from his guilt, may have made some application to him, and this may be the origin of the story; but it seems impossible to say with any certainty what parts of it, if any, are genuine and what fictitious. Philip was the first emperor who tried to check the grosser forms of vice at Rome (Lampridius, V. Heliogabali, 31; V. Severi, 23), though his efforts were unsuccessful (Victor, de Caesaribus, c.28). Zosimus, i.18-22; Vita Gordiani Tertii, cc.28-33; Tillem. Mém. eccl. iii.262; Gibbon, cc.7, 10, 16.

[F.D.]

Philippus, bp. of Heraclea
Philippus (6), bp. of Heraclea in Thrace and martyr in the Diocletian persecution c.304 with Severus, a presbyter, and Hermes, a deacon. His Acts present one of the most vivid and minute pictures we possess of that persecution, and are often quoted by Le Blanc in his Actes des Martyrs -- e.g. pp.12, 41, 52, 54, etc., where many incidental marks of authenticity are pointed out. The various steps in the persecution can be clearly traced, the arrest of the clergy, the seizure and destruction of the sacred writings and vessels, and finally the torture and death of the martyrs. Philip was arrested and examined by a president Bassus, who then committed him to the free custody of one Pancratus (c. vii.). Bassus was soon succeeded by a certain Justinus, who was much more stern towards the Christians than his predecessor, whose wife was a Christian. After some time Justinus brought them to Adrianople, and there burned Philip and Hermes on the same day (Ruinart, Acta Sincera, p.442).

[G.T.S.]

Philippus, of Side
Philippus (9), of Side, an ecclesiastical historian at the commencement of 5th cent., a native of the maritime town of Side in Pamphylia, the birthplace of Troilus the sophist, whose kinsman he was proud of reckoning himself. We find Philip at Constantinople enjoying the intimacy of Chrysostom, by whom he was admitted to the diaconate. Tillemont says that he was the imitator of Chrysostom's eloquence rather than of his virtues, and that the imitation was a very poor one. On the death of Atticus, a.d.425, by whom he had been ordained presbyter, Philip was a candidate for the vacant see, and found a number of influential supporters (Socr. H. E. vii.27). The prefering of Sisinnius caused him extreme mortification, which he exhibited in his Christian History, introducing a violent tirade against the character both of elected and electors, more particularly the lay supporters of Sisinnius. The bitterness and rashness of the charges are noticed by Socrates, who thought them undeserving mention in his history (ib.26). Philip, when again a candidate, both after the death of Sisinnius, a.d.428 and on the deposition of Nestorius in 431, had a considerable and energetic following (ib. vii.29, 35) but was unsuccessful, and died a presbyter. His chief work, entitled A Christian History, was divided into 36 books and about a thousand chapters. It ranged from the creation to his own times. Except one or two fragments, the whole is lost. The descriptions of it given by Socrates (ib.27) and Photius (Cod.35) shew that its loss is not to be regretted on literary grounds. Socrates describes it as a medley of theorems in geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music, with descriptions of islands, mountains, and trees, and other matters of little moment. The chronological order of events was constantly disregarded. Photius's estimate is equally low: |diffuse; neither witty nor elegant; full of undigested learning, with very little bearing on history at all, still less on Christian history.| A fragment relating to the school of Alexandria and the succession of the teachers has been printed by Dodwell at the close of his dissertations on Irenaeus (Oxf.1689). Of this Neander writes: |The known untrustworthiness of this author; the discrepancy between his statements and other more authentic reports, and the suspicious condition in which the fragment has come down to us, render his details unworthy of confidence| (Ch. Hist. vol. ii. p.460, Clark's trans.). Another considerable fragment is reported to exist in the Imperial Library at Vienna, entitled de Christi Nativitate, et de Magis, giving the acts of a disputation held in Persia concerning Christianity between certain Persians and Christians, at which Philip was himself present. Tillem. Mém. eccl. xii.431; Hist. des empereurs, vi.130; Cave, Hist. Lat. i.395; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vi.112, lib. v. c.4, § 28.

[E.V.]

Philo, deacon
Philo (2), deacon. Among the proofs of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters [[489]IGNATIUS] is the fact that we obtain a thoroughly consistent story on piecing together scattered notices about obscure persons. Thus two deacons are mentioned, Philo from Cilicia and Rheius Agathopus from Syria (Philadelph. ii., Smyrn.10, 13). We find that these deacons had not started with Ignatius, but had followed afterwards, taking the same route; that at Philadelphia, where Ignatius himself had encountered heretical opposition, some had treated them also with contumely; that they had been too late to overtake the saint at Smyrna, but had been kindly entertained by the church there. Finally, they were with Ignatius at Troas, and from them doubtless he received the joyful news of the peace which the church of Syria had obtained since his departure. The clearness with which the whole story comes out from oblique inferences is evidence that we have here a true history (Lightfoot's Ignatius, i.334, ii.279).

It was no doubt the mention in the genuine epistles of this Philo from Cilicia that suggested to Pseudo-Ignatius to forge a letter in the name of the martyr to the church of Tarsus, and to specify that city as the place where Philo served as deacon.

[G.S.]

Philogonius, bp. of Antioch
Philogonius, bp. of Antioch, 22nd in succession, following Vitalis c.319. He affords an example of a layman, a husband, and a father being raised at once, like Ambrose at Milan, to the episcopate of his city. He had been an advocate in the law courts, and gained universal esteem by his powerful advocacy of the poor and oppressed, |making the wronged stronger than the wronger.| The few facts known of his history are gathered from a homily delivered at Antioch by Chrysostom on his Natalitia (Chrys. Orat.71, t. v. p.507, ed. Savile). Chrysostom comments upon the great difficulties (duskoliai) Philogonius met with at the commencement of his episcopate from the persecution which had so recently ceased, and says that his highest eulogy is the pure and flourishing condition in which he left the church. The earliest ecclesiastical building in Antioch, |the mother of all the churches in the city,| traditionally ascribed to apostolic times, the rebuilding of which had been begun by Vitalis, was finished by him (Theod. H. E. i.3). He was denounced by Arius as one of his most determined opponents (ib.5). He was succeeded by Paulinus, the Arianizing bp. of Tyre, c.323. He is called Philonicus by Eutychius (p.431), who assigns him 5 years of office (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. vi. p.194; Neale, Patr. of Ant. p.84).

[E.V.]

Philostorgius, a Cappadocian author
Philostorgius, a Cappadocian, born c.368, and author of a church history extending from 300 to 425. The greater part has perished, but some fragments have been preserved by Photius. They were published by Godefrid at Geneva in 1642, and by Valesius, with a Latin trans. and notes, at Paris in 1673. An English trans. by Walford appeared in 1855. Photius regarded both author and book with worse than contempt. The style he allows to be sometimes elegant, though more frequently marked by stiffness, coldness, and obscurity. The contents he treats as unworthy of reliance, often beginning his extracts by denouncing the author as an |enemy of God,| an |impious wretch,| an |impudent liar.| Even Gibbon, naturally inclined as he was to accept the statements of a heretic in preference to those of an orthodox theologian, is compelled to allow that |the credibility of Philostorgius is lessened, in the eyes of the orthodox, by his Arianism; and, in those of rational critics, by his passion, his prejudice, and his ignorance| (Hist. c. xxi.). Gibbon thinks that he appears to have obtained |some curious and authentic intelligence| (c. xxv.), yet was marked in making use of it by |cautious malice| (c. xxiii.). These unfavourable opinions are shared by Tillemont (Hist. vol. iv. p.281), and, though with some just expressions as to what might have been the value of his history had it been preserved, by Jortin (Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p.122) and Schröckh (vol. i. p.148). All existing evidence leads to the belief that the history of Philostorgius was less a fair statement of what he had seen and known than a panegyric upon the heretics of his time.

[W.M.]

Philoxenus, a Monophysite leader
Philoxenus (4) (Xenaias), a conspicuous leader of the Monophysites at the beginning of 6th cent. He shares with Severus of Antioch, the true scientific head of the previously leaderless party of the Acephali, the reputation of having originated the Jacobite form of Monophysitism, which was long supreme in Egypt and is still adopted by the Copts. Our knowledge of Philoxenus comes almost exclusively from his theological opponents, against whom he was engaged in a determined and not very scrupulous warfare. Much that is stated to his discredit admits of reasonable doubt. Some stories we may absolutely reject. We know him as an acute dialectician, a subtle theologian, and a zealous and uncompromising champion of the unity of the nature of Christ against what he regarded as the heresy of the two natures, and as one to whose desire for a faithful rendering of N.T. the church is indebted for what is known as the |Philoxenian Syriac Version.| We soon find him in Syria, where, having accepted the Henoticon and the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, he proved an active opponent of all Nestorianizers and a zealous propagator of Monophysite views in the country villages round Antioch. Calandio, the patriarch of Antioch, expelled him from his diocese. He was recalled by Peter the Fuller, who ordained him bp. of Hierapolis (Mabug) in place of the more orthodox Cyrus, c.485. During Peter's turbulent rule Philoxenus actively supported his measures for suppressing the Nestorianizing section of the church and establishing Eutychian or Monophysite doctrines in his patriarchate and generally in the East. The accession in 498 of the vacillating Flavian to the throne of Antioch, and his change of front from opposition to support of Chalcedon, led Philoxenus to adopt a more active line of conduct (Evagr. H. E. iii.31), pursuing Flavian with untiring animosity, endeavouring to force him to accept the Henoticon, on his refusal denouncing him as a concealed Nestorian, demanding that he should repudiate not only Nestorius but all who were regarded as sympathizing with him, Diodorus, Theodorus, Theodoret, and many others, repeatedly denouncing him to the emperor Anastasius, and at last accomplishing his deprivation and expulsion. [[490]FLAVIANUS OF ANTIOCH.] In pursuance of his object Philoxenus more than once visited Constantinople. The first time was at the summons of Anastasius, a.d.507. His arrival caused a great disturbance among the clergy, laity, and monastic bodies. To consult the peace of the city, the emperor was compelled to remove him secretly (Theophan. p.128; Victor. Tunun. sub. ann.499). Unable in any other way to secure the deposition of Flavian and his supporter Elias of Jerusalem, Philoxenus obtained from Anastasius an order for convening a synod ostensibly to define more exactly the points of faith, but really to remove the two obnoxious prelates. This synod of about 80 bishops met at Sidon early in 512, under the joint presidency of Philoxenus and Soterichus of the Cappadocian Caesarea. Feeling ran so high and so much endangered the public peace that the synod was broken up by the emperor's command without pronouncing any sentence (Labbe, iv.1413; Theophan. p. iii; Vit. S. Sab. ap. Coteler, Mon. Eccl. Graec. iii.297 ff.). In the subsequent proceedings, when rival bodies of monks poured down from the mountain ranges into the streets of Antioch, and were joined by different parties among the citizens, converting the city into a scene of uproar and bloodshed (Evagr. H. E. iii.32), Philoxenus was left practically master of the field. Flavian was banished, and the Monophysite Severus, the friend and associate of Philoxenus, was put in his place towards the close of 512 (ib. iii.33). The triumph of Philoxenus, however, was but short. In 518 Anastasius was succeeded by the more orthodox Justin, who immediately on his accession, declaring himself an adherent of Chalcedon, restored the expelled orthodox bishops and banished the heterodox. Philoxenus is said to have been banished to Philippopolis in Thrace (Asseman. Bibl. Orient. ii.19; Theophan. p.141; Chron. Edess.87), and thence to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he died of suffocation by smoke (Bar-heb. ii.56). He is commemorated by the Jacobites in their liturgy as a doctor and confessor.

The Syriac translation of N.T. known as the |Philoxenian Version,| subsequently revised by Thomas of Harkel, in which form alone we possess it, was executed in 508 at his desire by his chorepiscopus Polycarp (Moses Agnellus, ap. Asseman. Bibl. Orient. ii.83; ib. i.408). It is extremely literal; |the Syriac idiom is constantly bent to suit the Greek, and everything is in some manner expressed in the Greek phrase and order| (Westcott in Smith's D. B. vol. iii. p.1635 B).

Philoxenus and Severus were the authors of the dominant form of Monophysite doctrines which, while maintaining the unity of the natures of Christ, endeavoured to preserve a distinction between the divine and the human. This doctrine is laid down in eight propositions at variance with the tenets of the early Christians, whom he stigmatized as Phantasiasts. Christ was the Son of Man, i.e. Son of the yet unfallen man, and the Logos took the body and soul of man as they were before Adam's fall. The very personality of God the Word descended from heaven and became man in the womb of the Virgin, personally without conversion. Thus He became a man Who could be seen, felt, handled, and yet as God He continued to possess the spiritual, invisible, impalpable character essential to Deity. Neither the deity nor the humanity was absorbed one by the other, nor converted one into the other. Nor again was a third evolved by a combination of the two natures as by chemical transformation. They taught one nature constituted out of two, not simple but twofold, mia phusis sunthetos, or mia phusis ditte. The one Person of the Incarnate Word was not a duality but a unity. The same Son Who was one before the Incarnation was equally one when united to the body. In all said, done, or suffered by Christ, there was only one and the same God the Word, Who became man, and took on Himself the condition of want and suffering, not naturally but voluntarily, for the accomplishment of man's redemption. It followed that God the Word suffered and died, and not merely a body distinct from or obedient to Him, or in which He dwelt, but with which He was not one. Their view as to the personal work of Christ is briefly summed up in the Theopaschite formula, |unus a Trinitate descendit de coelo, incarnatus est, crucifixus, mortuus, resurrexit, ascendit in caelum.| Philoxenus held that |potuit non mori,| not that |non potuit mori.| It followed that he affirmed a single will in Christ. In the Eucharist he held that the living body of the living God was received, not anything belonging to a corruptible man like ourselves. He was decidedly opposed to all pictorial representations of Christ, as well as of all spiritual beings. No true honour, he said, was done to Christ by making pictures of Him, since His only acceptable worship was that in spirit and in truth. To depict the Holy Spirit as a dove was puerile, for it is said economically that He was seen in the likeness, not in the body, of a dove. It was contrary to reason to represent angels, purely spiritual beings, by human bodies. He acted up to these opinions and blotted out pictures of angels, removing out of sight those of Christ (Joann. Diaconus, de Eccl. Hist. ap. Labbe, vii.369).

He was a very copious writer, and described by Assemani as one of the best and most elegant in the Syrian tongue (Bibl. Orient. i.475; ii.20). Assemani gives a catalogue of 23 of his works. To these may be added 13 homilies on Christian life and character (Wright, 764); 12 chapters against the holders of the Two Wills (ib.730, 749); 10 against those who divided Christ (ib.730). Evagr. H. E. iii.31, 32; Theod. Lect. fragm. p.569; Theophan. Chronogr. pp.115, 128, 129, 131, 141; Labbe, iv.1153, vii.88, 368; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xvi.677-681, 701-706; Neander, H. E. iv.255, Clark's trans.; Gieseler, H. E. ii.94; Schröckh, Kirch. Geschich. xviii.526-538; Dorner, Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. pp.133-135, Clark's trans.

[E.V.]

Phocas, of Sinope
Phocas, of Sinope, a celebrated martyr, of whom very little is actually known and whose real date is uncertain. Combefis places his martyrdom in the last years of Trajan, but Tillemont considers a later persecution, either that of Decius or that of Diocletian, more probable. Our sole knowledge of Phocas is from an oration in his honour by Asterius of Amasea. He states that Phocas was an honest and industrious gardener at Sinope, a convert to Christianity, and exceedingly hospitable to strangers. Being denounced as a Christian and sentenced to death, a party of soldiers was despatched to Sinope to carry the sentence into execution. Phocas hospitably entertained them, and on discovering their mission forbore to escape, as he might easily have done, and, on their asking him where they could find Phocas, made himself known to them and was at once decapitated. His trunk was buried in a grave he had dug for himself, over which a church was subsequently built. His relics were so fruitful in miracles that he obtained the name of Thaumaturgus. His body was transferred to Constantinople with great magnificence in the time of Chrysostom, who delivered a homily on the occasion (Hom.71, t. i. p.775). A monastery was subsequently built on the spot, in which his relics were deposited, the abbats of which are often mentioned in early times (Du Cange, Constant. Christ. lib. iv. p.133). Gregory Nazianzen mentions Phocas as a celebrated disciple of Christ (Carm.52, t. ii. p.122). That he was bp. of Sinope is a late invention. Some of his relics were said to be translated to the Apostles' Church at Vienne. He was the favourite saint of the Greek sailors, who were in the habit of making him a sharer at their meals, the portion set apart for him daily being purchased by some one, and the money put aside and distributed to the poor on their arrival at port. He is commemorated by the modern Greeks on two days, July 22 and Sept.22. The former day may be that of his translation (Tillem. Mém. eccl. v.581).

[E.V.]

Photinus, a Galatian
Photinus, a Galatian, educated by Marcellus of Ancyra and afterwards deacon and presbyter of his church, perhaps too (during the time when Marcellus, expelled from his own see, a.d.336, was wandering about between Rome and Constantinople) transferred to the see of Sirmium. He made no secret of the doctrines he had imbibed from his master, and succeeded in obtaining a hearing for them. The Eusebians at Antioch, in their lengthiest formula, three years after the Encoenia, were the first to attack him, classing him with his preceptor. He was next attacked at Milan, then the imperial capital; by the same party soon after at Sardica (D. C. A. |Councils of Milan| and |Councils of Sirmium|); and two years later another and larger synod decreed his deposition. Moderns are not agreed where this synod met, but St. Hilary, beyond any reasonable doubt, fixes it at Sirmium (Fragm. ii. n.21; cf. Larroque, Diss. i. de Phot. pp.76 seq.), being the first of the councils held there, a.d.349 (Larroque says 350). Constantius being absent when sentence was first passed on Photinus in his own city, the popularity he had gained there stood him in good stead, in spite of his avowed opinions, which Socrates tells us he would never disclaim. He remained in possession till 351, when a second council having assembled there by order of the emperor, then present in person, he was taken in hand by Basil, the successor of his master at Ancyra, and having been signally refuted by him in a formal dispute, was put out of his see forthwith. Hefele thinks he may have regained it under Julian for a short time, but was again turned out under Valentinian, to return no more; and dates his death a.d.366 (Counc. ii.199). For a collection of authorities on the chronological difficulties in connexion with his history, see a note to Hefele's Councils (Oxenham's trans. ii.188-189).

[E.S.FF.]

Photius, bp. of Tyre
Photius, bp. of Tyre, and metropolitan, elected on the deposition of Irenaeus, Sept.9, 448. He is unfavourably known for cowardly tergiversation in the case of IBAS of Edessa. Under the powerful influence of Uranius of Himera, he and his fellow-judges first acquitted Ibas at Tyre and Berytus, and the next year at the |Robber Synod| of Ephesus zealously joined in his condemnation (Martin, Le Brigandage d'Ephèse, pp 118-120, 181). At the same synod he accused Acylinus, bp. of Byblos, of Nestorianism and with refusing to appear before him and Domnus, the real ground of offence being manifestly that he had been appointed by Irenaeus. On Photius's statement alone Acylinus was at once deposed. Photius at the same time undertook to clear Phoenicia of all clergy tainted with Nestorianism (Martin, u.s. p.183; Actes du brigandage, pp.86-89). With easy versatility Photius took his place among the orthodox prelates at Chalcedon, regularly voted on the right side, signed the decisions of the council, voted for the restoration of Theodoret to his bishopric, presented a résumé of the proceedings at Berytus favourable to Ibas, and signed the 28th canon conferring on Constantinople the same primacy, presbeia, as that enjoyed by Rome (Labbe, iv.79, 328, 373, 623, 635, 803). At the same time, after presenting a petition to Marcian (ib.541), he obtained a settlement of the controversy between himself and Eustathius of Berytus as to metropolitical jurisdiction, in favour of the ancient rights of the see of Tyre, together with a reversal of Eustathius's act of deposition of the bishops ordained by Photius, within the district claimed by the former (ib.542-546; Canon. Chalc.29). Photius was no longer bp. of Tyre in 457, when Dorotheus replied to the encyclical of the emperor Leo. Labbe, iv.921; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.443; Ceillier, Aut. eccl. xiv.271, etc.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. vol. xv. index; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x.678; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii.808).

[E.V.]

Pierius, a presbyter of Alexandria
Pierius (Hierius). An eminent presbyter of Alexandria, famous for voluntary poverty, philosophical knowledge, and public expositions of Holy Scripture. He ruled the catechetical school of Alexandria under bp. Theonas, a.d.265, and afterwards lived at Rome. He wrote several treatises extant in St. Jerome's time, and some were known as late as that of Photius. One was a homily upon Hosea, which he recited on Easter Eve, wherein he notes that the people continued in church on Easter Eve till after midnight. Photius mentions a work on St. Luke's Gospel as part of a volume by him, divided into 12 books. >From his eloquence he was called the younger Origen. Photius declares that he was orthodox about the Father and the Son, though using the words substance and nature to signify person. But his manner of speaking about the Holy Ghost was unorthodox, because he said that His glory was less than that of the Father and the Son. In the time of Epiphanius there was a church at Alexandria dedicated in his honour. Some have therefore thought that he suffered martyrdom in Diocletian's persecution. Eus. vii.32; Hieron. Vir. Ill. c.76; id. Ep.70 al.84, § 4, p.429; id. Praefat. in Osee; Photius, Cod.119; Niceph. Call. H. E. vi.35; Du Pin, H. E. cent. iii.; Ceillier, ii.462; Tillem. Mém.. iv.582.

[G.T.S.]

Pinianus, husband of Melania the younger
Pinianus (2), the husband of Melania the younger. Palladius speaks of him as son of a prefect (Vit. Patr.119). He and his wife entertained Palladius of Helenopolis when be came to Rome on Chrysostom's affairs (Hist. Laus.121). They left Rome in 408, when the siege by Alaric was impending. Melania the elder having died at Bethlehem, they inherited her vast estates. They were intent on doing good and are said to have liberated 8,000 slaves (ib.119). After the sack of Rome in 410 they settled in Africa at Tagaste with bp. Alypius and desired to meet Augustine. He immediately wrote to welcome them (Ep.124), but was unable to come to them, so they went with Alypius to Hippo. There the strange scene, so instructive as to the church life of the period, occurred, which is recounted by Augustine (Ep.126). The clergy and people of Hippo, knowing their wealth, determined that they should, by the ordination of Pinianus, become attached to their church and city. A tumult was raised in the church, and though Augustine refused to ordain a man against his will, he was unable, or not firm enough, to resist the violence of the people, who extracted from Pinianus a promise that he would not leave Hippo nor be ordained in any other church. Next day, however, fearing further violence, he, with Melania and her mother Albina, returned to Tagaste. Some rather acrimonious correspondence ensued between them and Augustine (Ep.125-128). Alypius considered that a promise extorted by violence was not valid, Augustine demanded that it should be fulfilled; and the controversy lasted until, by the rapacity of the rebel count Heraclian, Pinianus was robbed of his property, and the people of Hippo no longer cared to enforce the promise. Being now free, though poor, Pinianus, with his wife and mother-in-law, went to Egypt, saw the monasteries of the Thebaid, and thence to Palestine, settling at Bethlehem. On the appearance of the Pelagian controversy, their letters to Augustine induced him to write (a.d.417) his book on grace and original sin. We only hear of Pinianus after this in a letter of Jerome in 419, in which he, Albina, and Melania, salute Augustine and Alypius. Hieron. Ep. cxliii.2, ed. Vall.; Aug. de Grat. Christi, ii. and xxxii.

[W.H.F.]

Pionius, martyr at Smyrna
Pionius, martyr at Smyrna, in the Decian persecution, Mar.12, 250. It was probably this Pionius who revived the cultus of POLYCARP in Smyrna, by recovering an ancient MS. martyrdom of that saint and fixing the day of commemoration in accordance with it.

When taken to prison, Pionius and his companions, Asclepiades and Sabina, found there already another Catholic presbyter, named Lemnus, and a Montanist woman named Macedonia. The divisions of the Christian community were now well known to their persecutors for in the examinations of the martyrs those who owned themselves Christians were always further interrogated as to what church or sect they belonged. The Acts give a long report of exhortations delivered by Pionius to his
fellow-prisoners. With Pionius suffered a Marcionite presbyter Metrodorus, the stakes of both being turned to the east, Pionius on the right, Metrodorus on the left. The Acts are important on account of their undoubted antiquity. We only know them by a Latin translation, of which two types are extant -- one which seems more faithfully to represent the original, published by Surius and reprinted by the Bollandists (Feb.1); the other by Ruinart (Acta Sincera, p.137). The common original was certainly read by Eusebius, who (H. E. iv.15) gives a description of the Acts of Pionius which agrees too often with those extant for different Acts to be intended. Eusebius, however, represents Pionius as suffering at the same time as Polycarp, while the extant Acts place him a century later, a date attested by the Paschal Chronicle, which makes Pionius suffer in the Decian persecution, and confirmed by internal evidence. On the Life of Polycarp ascribed to Pionius, see POLYCARP. Cf. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. der N.T. Kanons, iv.271.

[G.S.]

Pius I., bp. of Rome
Pius I., bp. of Rome after Hyginus in the middle part of 2nd cent. The dates cannot be fixed with certainty, the traditions being contradictory. The Liberian Catalogue and the Felician both name Antoninus Pius (138-161) as the contemporary emperor, as does Eusebius (H. E. iv.11). Lipsius (Chronol. der röm. Bischöf.), after full discussion of the chronology, assigns from 139 to 154 as the earliest, and from 141 to 156 as the latest, tenable dates. The absence of distinct early records of the early Roman bishops is further shewn by the fact that both the Liberian and Felician Catalogues place Anicetus between Hyginus and Pius. So also Optatus (ii.48) and Augustine (Ep.53, ordo novus). But that the real order was Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, may be considered certain from the authority of Hegesippus (quoted by Eus. H. E. iv.22), who was at Rome himself in the time of Anicetus, and, when there, made out a succession of the Roman bishops. Irenaeus, who visited Rome in the time of Eleutherus, gives the same order (adv. Haer. iii.3; cf. Eus. iv.1; v.24; Epipb. adv. Haer. xxvii.6).

The episcopate of Pius is important for the introduction of Gnostic heresy into Rome. The heresiarchs Valentinus and Cerdo had come thither in the time of Hyginus and continued to teach there under Pius (Iren. i.27, ii.4; cf. Eus. H. E. iv.11). Marcion of Pontus, who took up the teaching of Cerdo and developed from it his own peculiar system, arrived there after the death of Hyginus (Epiph. Haer. xlii.1; cf. Eus. H. E. iv.11).

Pius, according to the MURATORIAN FRAGMENT (c.170) and the Liberian Catalogue, was brother to HERMAS, the writer of the Shepherd. Lipsius (op. cit.) considers this relationship established. Westcott (Canon of N. T. pt. i. c.2) accepts it, and adduces internal evidence in the work of Hermas itself.

Those who maintain the view of the presbyterian constitution of the early Roman church, and of the earliest so-called bishops having been in fact only leading presbyters, to whom a distinct episcopal office was afterwards assigned by way of tracing the succession, would attribute the development of the later episcopal system to the age of Pius, Thus Lipsius speaks of him as the first bishop in the stricter sense (|Bischof im engeren Sinn|). He supposes both Hyginus and Pius to have presided over the college of presbyters, though only as primi inter pares, and the need of a recognized head of the church to resist Gnostic teachers to have led to the latter obtaining a position of authority which, after his time, became permanent. The advocates of this view adduce passages from the Shepherd of Hermas, in which messages are sent in rebuke of strifes for precedence among the Christians at Rome (Vis. iii.9; Mandat. ix.; Simil. viii.7). These strifes are assumed to denote the beginning of struggles for episcopal power in the supposed later sense But there is no evidence in the passages of the strifes having anything to do with such struggles. [[496]HERMAS.]

More cogent is the fact that, in the account given by Epiphanius of Marcion's arrival in Rome, he is represented as having applied for communion to the presbyters, without mention of the bishop. Those to whom he applied, and who gave judgment, are called |the seniors (presbutai), who, having been taught by the disciples of the apostles, still survived| (adv. Haer. xlii. i); also |the presbyters (presbuteroi) of that time| (ib. c.2); also epieikeis kai panagioi presbuteroi kai didaskaloi tes hagias ekklesias. But these expressions do not disprove the existence of a presiding bishop, acting in and through his synod, who would himself be included in the designation presbuteroi. For it was not till some time after the apostolic period that the names episkopos and presbuteros were used distinctively to denote two orders of clergy. Even Irenaeus, though enumerating the bishops of Rome from the first as distinct from the general presbytery, still speaks of them as presbyters; using in one place (iii.2, 2) the phrase |successiones presbyterorum,| though in another (iii.3, 1 and 2) |successiones episcoporum.| Cf. iv.26, 2, 3, 5; v.20, 2; and Ep ad Victorem (ap. Eus. v.24); where the bishops before Soter are called presbuteroi hoi prostantes tes ekklesias. Tertullian also (Apol. c.39) calls bishops and presbyters together seniores. Moreover, the omission by Epiphanius of any mention of a head of the Roman presbytery at the time of Marcion's visit may be due to a vacancy in the see. For it is said to be after the death of Hyginus, with no mention of Pius having succeeded. In such circumstances the college of presbyters would naturally entertain the case. Certainly very soon after the period before us, both Pius and his predecessors from the first were spoken of as having been bishops (however designated) in a distinctive sense, and Anicetus, the successor of Pius, appears historically as such on the occasion of Polycarp's visit to Rome (Iren. ap. Eus. H. E. v.24).

Four letters and several decrees are assigned to Pius, of which the first two letters (to all the faithful and to the Italians) and the decrees are universally rejected as spurious. The two remaining letters, addressed to Justus, bp. of Vienne, are accepted as genuine by Baronius, Binius, and Bona, but have no real claims to authenticity.

[J.B -- Y.]

Placidia, empress
Placidia (1), empress. [[497]GALLA.]

Poemen, anchorite of Egypt
Poemen (1), (Poimen, Pastor), a famous anchorite of Egypt. He retired very young into the monasteries of Scete c.390, and continued there 70 years, dying c.460. His Life occupies much space in Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum, v.15, in Patr. Lat. t. lxxiii. and in Cotelerii Monum. Eccl. Graec. t. i. pp.585-637. The anecdotes in the last-mentioned authority give the best idea of the man. He treated his aged mother with neglect, refusing to see her when she sought him. His solitary life destroyed all feelings of human nature. His story is concisely told in Ceillier, viii.468-470, and Tillemont, Mém. xv.147.

[G.T.S.]

Polycarpus, bishop of Smyrna
Polycarpus (1), bp. of Smyrna, one of the most prominent figures in the church of the 2nd cent. He owes this prominence less to intellectual ability, which does not appear to have been pre-eminent, than to the influence gained by a consistent and unusually long life. Born some 30 years before the end of the 1st cent., and raised to the episcopate apparently in early manhood, he held his office to the age of 86 or more. He claimed to have known at least one apostle and must in early life have met many who could tell things they had heard from actual disciples of our Lord. The younger generation, into which he lived on, naturally recognized him as a peculiarly trustworthy source of information concerning the first age of the church. During the later years of his life Gnostic speculation had become very active and many things unknown to the faith of ordinary Christians were put forth as derived by secret traditions from the apostles. Thus a high value was attached to the witness Polycarp could give as to the genuine tradition of apostolic doctrine, his testimony condemning as offensive novelties the figments of the heretical teachers. Irenaeus states (iii.3) that on Polycarp's visit to Rome his testimony converted many disciples of Marcion and Valentinus. Polycarp crowned his other services to the church by a glorious martyrdom. When, at the extremity of human life, it seemed as if he could do no more for the church but continue his example of holiness, piety, and orthodoxy, a persecution broke out in which he, as the venerated head of the Christian community in Asia Minor, was specially marked out for attack. He gave a noble exhibition of calm courage, neither courting nor fearing martyrdom, sheltering himself by concealment while possible, and when no longer so, resolutely declaring in defiance of threats his unshaken love for the Master he had served so long. Such a death, following on such a life, made Polycarp's the most illustrious name of his generation in Christian annals.

Irenaeus states (III. iii.4) that Polycarp had been instructed by apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, and had also been established |by apostles| as bishop in the church at Smyrna; and doubtless Tertullian (de Praescrip.32) is right in understanding this to mean that he had been so established by St. John, whose activity in founding the episcopate of Asia Minor is spoken of also by Clem. Alex. in his well-known story of St. John and the robber (Quis. div. Salv. p.959). The testimony of Irenaeus conclusively shews the current belief in Asia Minor during the old age of Polycarp, and it is certain that Polycarp was bp. of Smyrna at the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius, i.e. c.110. Ignatius, journeying from Antioch to Rome, halted first at Smyrna, where, as at his other resting places, the Christians flocked from all around to receive his counsels and bestow attentions on him. From the city where he next halted he wrote separate letters to the church of Smyrna and to Polycarp its bishop. A later stage was Philippi, and to the church there Polycarp wrote afterwards a letter still extant, sending them copies of the letters of Ignatius and inquiring for information about Ignatius, the detailed story of whose martyrdom appears not yet to have reached Smyrna.

The question as to the genuineness of the extant Ep. of Polycarp is very much mixed up with that of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. The course of modern investigation has been decidedly favourable to the genuineness of the Ignatian letters [[498]IGNATIUS], and the Ep. of Polycarp is guaranteed by external testimony of exceptional goodness. It is mentioned by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (III. iii.4), and an important passage is quoted by Eusebius. Further, as Lightfoot has conclusively shown (Contemp. Rev. May 1875, p.840), it is impossible that Polycarp's letter and those of Ignatius could have had any common authorship. Some of the topics on which the Ignatian letters lay most stress are absent from that of Polycarp; in particular, Polycarp's letter is silent about episcopacy, of which the Ignatian letters speak so much, and it has consequently been thought probable either that episcopacy had not yet been organized at Philippi, or that the office was then vacant. The forms of expression in the two letters are different; N.T. quotations, profuse in Polycarp's letter, are comparatively scanty in the Ignatian ones; and, most decisive of all, the Ignatian letters are characterized by great originality of thought and expression, while Polycarp's is but a commonplace echo of the apostolic epistles. When we compare Polycarp's letter with the extant remains of the age of Irenaeus, the superior antiquity of the former is evident, whether we attend to their use of N.T., their notices of ecclesiastical organization, their statements of theological doctrine, or observe the silence in Polycarp's letter on the questions which most interested the church towards the close of the 2nd cent. The question has been raised whether, admitting the genuineness of Polycarp's epistle as a whole, we may not reject as an interpolation c. xiii., which speaks of Ignatius. The extant MSS. of Polycarp's letter are derived from one in which the leaves containing the end of Polycarp's letter and the beginning of that of Barnabas were wanting, so that the end of Barnabas seemed the continuation of Polycarp's epistle. The concluding chapters of Polycarp are only known to us by a Latin translation. The hiatus, however, in the Greek text begins not at c. xiii. but at c. x.; and the part which speaks about Ignatius is exactly that for which we have the Greek text assured to us by the quotation of Eusebius. There is therefore absolutely no reason for rejecting c. xiii. unless on the supposition that the forgery of the Ignatian letters has been demonstrated.

Though Polycarp's epistle is remarkable for its copious use of N.T. language, there are no formal quotations, but it is mentioned that St. Paul had written to the church of Philippi, to which Polycarp's epistle is addressed. The language in which St. Paul's letters are spoken of, both here and in the epistles of Ignatius, decisively refutes the theory that there was opposition between the schools of John and Paul. It illustrates the small solicitude of Eusebius to produce testimony to the use of N.T. books undisputed in his time, that though he notices (iv.14) Polycarp's use of I. Peter, he is silent as to this express mention of St. Paul's letters. Polycarp's Pauline quotations include distinct recognition of Eph. and I. and II. Tim., and other passages clearly shew a use of Rom., I. Cor, Gal., Phil., II. Thess. The employment of I. Peter is especially frequent. There is one unmistakable coincidence with Acts. The use of I. and II. John is probable. The report of our Lord's sayings agrees in substance with our Gospels, but may or may not have been directly taken from them. The coincidences with Clement's epistle are beyond what can fairly be considered accidental, and probably the celebrity gained by Clement's epistle set the example to bishops elsewhere of writing to foreign churches. Polycarp states, however, that his own letter had been invited by the church of Philippi. Some church use of Polycarp's epistle seems to have continued in Asia until Jerome's time; if we can lay stress on his rather obscure expression (Catal.) |epistolam quae usque hodie in conventu Asiae legitur.| The chief difference between Clement's and Polycarp's letters is in the use of the O.T., which is perpetual in the former, very rare in the latter. There is coincidence with one passage in Tobit, two in Ps., and one in Is.; and certainly in one of the last 3 cases, possibly in all three, the adopted words are not taken directly from the O.T., but from N.T. This difference, however, is explained when we bear in mind that Clement had probably been brought up in Judaism, while Polycarp was born of Christian parents and familiar with the apostolic writings from his youth.

Our knowledge of Polycarp's life between the date of his letter and his martyrdom comes almost entirely from 3 notices by IRENAEUS. The first is in his letter to FLORINUS; the second in the treatise on Heresies (III. iii.4); the third in the letter of Irenaeus to Victor, of which part is preserved by Eusebius (v.24). Irenaeus, writing in advanced life, tells how vivid his recollections still were of having been a hearer of Polycarp, then an old man; how well he remembered where the aged bishop used to sit, his personal appearance, his ways of going out and coming in, and how frequently he used to relate his intercourse with John and others who had seen our Lord, and to repeat stories of our Lord's miracles and teaching, all in complete accord with the written record. The reminiscences of Irenaeus are in striking agreement with Polycarp's extant letter in their picture of his attitude towards heresy. He seems not to have had the qualifications for successfully conducting a controversial discussion with erroneous teachers, nor perhaps the capacity for feeling the difficulties which prompted their speculations; but he could hot help strongly feeling how unlike these speculations were to the doctrines he had learned from apostles and their immediate disciples, and so met with indignant reprobation their attempt to supersede Christ's gospel by fictions of their own devising. Irenaeus tells how, when he heard their impiety, he would stop his ears and cry out, |O good God! for what times hast Thou kept me that I should endure such things!| and would even flee from the place where he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. In so behaving he claimed to act in the spirit of his master John, concerning whom he told that once when he went to take a bath in Ephesus and saw Cerinthus within, he rushed away without bathing, crying out, |Let us flee, lest the bath should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within|; and when Marcion meeting Polycarp asked him, |Do you recognize us?| he answered, |I recognize thee as the firstborn of Satan.| This last phrase is found in the extant letter. He says, |Every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the Cross is of the devil; and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and saith that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a first-born of Satan.| This coincidence has, not very reasonably, been taken as a note of spuriousness of the letter; the idea being that a writer under the name of Polycarp who employs a phrase traditionally known as Polycarp's betrays himself as a forger striving to gain acceptance for his production. It might rather have been supposed that a coincidence between two independent accounts of Polycarp's mode of speaking of heretics ought to increase the credibility of both. Irenaeus, who reports the anecdote, was acquainted with the letter, and, if we cannot accept both, it is more conceivable that his recollection may have coloured his version of the anecdote.

One of the latest incidents in Polycarp's active life was a journey which, near the close of his episcopate, he made to Rome, where Anicetus was then bishop. We are not told whether the cause of the journey was to settle points of difference between Roman and Asiatic practice; those existed, but did not interrupt their mutual accord. In particular Asiatic Quartodecimanism was at variance with Roman usage. We cannot say with certainty what kind of Easter observance was used at Rome in the time of Anicetus, for the language of Irenaeus implies that it was not then what it afterwards became; but the Asiatic observance of the 14th day was unknown in Rome, although Polycarp averred the practice of his church to have had the sanction of John and other apostles, and therefore to be what he could by no means consent to change. Anicetus was equally determined not to introduce into his church an innovation on the practice of his predecessors; but yet shewed his reverence for his aged visitor by |yielding to him the Eucharist in his church.| This phrase seems capable of no other interpretation than that generally given to it, viz. that Anicetus permitted Polycarp to celebrate in his presence.

The story of the martyrdom of Polycarp is told in a letter still extant, purporting to be addressed by the church of Smyrna to the church sojourning (paroikouse) in Philomelium (a town of Phrygia) and to all the paroikiai of the holy Catholic Church in every place. This document was known to Eusebius, who transcribed the greater part in his Eccl. Hist. (iv.15). A trans. of this and of Polycarp's Ep. appears in the vol. of Apost. Fathers in Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). The occurrence of the phrase |Catholic Church| just quoted has been urged as a note of spuriousness; but not very reasonably, in the absence of evidence to make it even probable that the introduction of this phrase was later than the death of Polycarp. We know for certain that the phrase is very early. It is used in the Ignatian letters (Smyrn.8), by Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii.17), in the Muratorian Fragment, by Hippolytus (Ref. ix.12) and Tertullian. Remembering the warfare waged by Polycarp against heresy, it is highly probable that in his lifetime the need had arisen for a name to distinguish the main Christian body from the various separatists. The whole narrative of the martyrdom bears so plainly the mark of an eye-witness, that to imagine, as Lipsius and Keim have done, some one capable of inventing it a century after the death of Polycarp, seems to require great critical credulity. With our acceptance of the martyrdom as authentic Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift, 1874, p.334) and Renan (Eglise chrét.462) coincide. We see no good reason to doubt that the narrative was written, as it professes to be, within a year of the martyrdom, by members of the church where it occurred and who had actually witnessed it; and we believe it to have been written specially to invite members of other churches to attend the commemoration on the anniversary of the martyrdom. It is deeply tinged by a belief in the supernatural, but it is uncritical to cast doubts on the genuineness of a document on the assumption that Christians of the 2nd cent., under the strain of a great persecution, held the views of their 19th-cent. critics as to the possibility of receiving supernatural aid or consolation.

The story relates that Polycarp's martyrdom was the last act of a great persecution and took place on the occasion of games held at Smyrna, eleven others having suffered before him. These games were probably held in connection with the meeting of the Asiatic diet (to koinon tes Asias), which met in rotation in the principal cities of the province. If more information were available as to this rotation and as to the seasons when these meetings were held, we should probably be able to fix the date of Polycarp's martyrdom with more certainty. The proconsul came from Ephesus, the ordinary seat of government, to preside. It may have been to provide the necessary victims for the wild beast shows that the Christians were sought for (some were brought from Philadelphia) and required to swear by the fortune of the emperor and offer sacrifice. The proconsul appears to have discharged his unpleasant duty with the humanity ordinary among Roman magistrates, doing his best to persuade the accused to save themselves by compliance, and no doubt employing the tortures, of which the narrative gives a terrible account, as a merciful cruelty which might save him from proceeding to the last extremes. In one case his persuasion was successful. Quintus, Phrygian by nation, who had presented himself voluntarily for martyrdom, on sight of the wild beasts lost courage and yielded to the proconsul's entreaties. The Christians learned from his case to condemn wanton courting of danger as contrary to the gospel teaching. The proconsul lavished similar entreaties on a youth named Germanicus, but the lad was resolute, and instead of shewing fear, provoked the wild beasts in order to gain a speedier release from his persecutors. The act may have been suggested by the language of Ignatius (Rom. v.2); and certainly this language seems to have been present to the mind of the narrator. At sight of the bravery of Germanicus, a conviction seems to have seized the multitude that they should have rather chosen as their victim the teacher who had inspired the sufferers with their obstinacy. A cry was raised, |Away with the atheists! Let Polycarp be sought for!| Polycarp wished to remain at his post, but yielded to the solicitations of his people and retired for concealment to a country house, where he spent his time, as was his wont, in continual prayer for himself and his own people and for all the churches throughout the world. Three days before his apprehension he saw in a vision his pillow on fire, and at once interpreted the omen to his friends: |I must be burnt alive.| The search for him being hot, he retired to another farm barely escaping his pursuers, who seized and tortured two slave boys, one of whom betrayed the new place of retreat. Late on a Friday night the noise of horses and armed men announced the pursuers at hand. There seemed still the possibility of escape, and he was urged to make the attempt, but he refused, saying |God's will be done.| Coming down from the upper room where he had been lying down, he ordered meat and drink to be set before his captors and only begged an hour for uninterrupted prayer. This was granted; and for more than two hours he prayed, mentioning by name every one whom he had known, small or great, and praying for the Catholic church throughout the world. At length he was set on an ass and conducted to the city. Soon they met the irenarch Herod, the police magistrate under whose directions the arrest had been made, in whose name the Christians afterwards found one of several coincidences which they delighted to trace between the arrest of Polycarp and that of his Master. Herod, accompanied by his father Nicetes, took Polycarp to sit in his carriage, and both earnestly urged him to save his life: |Why, what harm was it to say Lord Caesar, and to sacrifice, and so on, and escape all danger?| Polycarp, at first silent, at last bluntly answered, |I will not do as you would have me.| Annoyed at the old man's obstinacy, they thrust him out of the carriage so rudely that he scraped his shin, the marks no doubt being visible to his friends when he afterwards stripped for the stake. But at the time he took no notice of the hurt and walked on as if nothing had happened. At the racecourse, where the multitude was assembled, there was a prodigious uproar; but the Christians could distinguish a voice which cried, |Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man! | Under the protection of the tumult the speaker remained undiscovered; and the Christians believed it a voice from heaven. The proconsul pressed Polycarp to have pity on his old age: |Swear by the fortune of Caesar, say 'Away with the atheists!'|. The martyr, sternly looking round on the assembled heathen, groaned, and looking up to heaven said, |Away with the atheists!| |Swear then, now,| said the proconsul, |and I will let you go; revile Christ.| Then Polycarp made the memorable answer, |Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He has never done me wrong; how, then, can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour! | The 86 years must clearly count from Polycarp's baptism; so that if we are not to ascribe to him an improbable length of life, we must infer that he was the child of Christian parents and had been baptized, if not in infancy, in very early childhood. The magistrate continuing to urge him, Polycarp cut matters short by plainly declaring himself a Christian and offering, if a day were assigned, to explain what Christianity was. |Obtain the consent of the people,| answered the proconsul. |Nay,| replied Polycarp, |I count it your due that I should offer my defence to you, because we have been taught to give due honour to the powers ordained of God; but as for these people, I owe no vindication to them.| The proconsul then had recourse to threats, but finding them unavailing, ordered his crier thrice to proclaim in the midst of the stadium, |Polycarp has confessed himself a Christian.| Then arose a furious outcry from heathen and Jews against this |father of the Christians,| this teacher of Asia, this destroyer of the worship of the gods. Philip the asiarch, or president of the games, was called on to loose a lion on Polycarp, but refused, saying the wild beast shows were now over. Then with one voice the multitude demanded that Polycarp should be burnt alive; for his vision must needs be fulfilled. Rushing to the workshops and baths they collected wood and faggots; the Jews, as usual, taking the most active part. We have evidence of the activity of the Jews at Smyrna at an earlier period, Rev. ii.9, and at a later in the story of the martyrdom of Pionius. When the pile was ready Polycarp proceeded to undress himself; and here the story has an autoptic touch, telling how the Christians marked the old man's embarrassment as he tried to take off his shoes, it having been many years since the reverence of his disciples had permitted him to perform that office for himself. When he had been bound (at his own request, not nailed) to the stake, and had offered up a final prayer, the pile was lit, but the flame bellied out under the wind like the sail of a ship, behind which the body could be seen, scorched but not consumed. The fumes seemed fragrant to the Christians, whether as the effect of imagination or because sweet-scented woods had been seized for the hasty structure. Seeing that the flame was dying out, an executioner was sent in to use the sword, when so much blood gushed forth that the flame was nearly extinguished. The Christians were about to remove the body; but Nicetes here further described as the brother of Alce, interfered and said, |If you give the body, the Christians will leave the Crucified One and worship him,| an idea deeply shocking to the narrator of the story, who declares it was impossible for them to leave, for any other, Christ the Holy One Who died for the salvation of the world. Him, as the Son of God, they worshipped; martyrs they loved on account of the abundance of their zeal and love for Him. The Jews eagerly backing up Nicetes, the centurion had the body placed on the pyre and saw it completely consumed, so that it was only the bones, |more precious than jewels, more tried than gold,| which the disciples could carry off to the place where they meant on the anniversary to commemorate the martyr's |birthday.| The epistle closes with a doxology. Euarestus is named as the writer; Marcion [or Marcianus] as the bearer of the letter.

Then follows by way of appendix a note, stating that the martyrdom took place on the 2nd of the month Xanthicus, the 7th before the calends of March [there is a various reading May], on a great sabbath at the 8th hour; the arrest having been made by Herod; Philip of Tralles being chief priest, Statius Quadratus proconsul, and Jesus Christ King for ever. A second note states that these Acts were transcribed by Socrates (or Isocrates) of Corinth, from a copy made by Caius, a companion of Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus. A third note states that this again had been transcribed by Pionius from a copy much decayed by time, the success of his search for which was due to a revelation made by Polycarp himself, |as will be shewn in what follows,| from which we infer that the martyrdom was followed by a Life of Polycarp.

The first chronological note may be accepted as, if not part of the original document, at least added by one of its first transcribers, and therefore deserving of high confidence. The name of the proconsul Statius Quadratus indicates best the date of the martyrdom. Eusebius in his chronicle had put it in the 6th year of Marcus Aurelius, i.e. a.d.166. M. Waddington (Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, 1867, xxvi.235) shewed that Eusebius's date was doubtful. Eusebius seems to have had no real knowledge of the date, and to have put it down somewhat at random, for he places Polycarp's martyrdom and the Lyons persecution under the same year, though the Lyons martyrdoms were as late as 177. At this time the ordinary interval between the consulship and proconsulate ranged between 12 and 16 years. Quadratus we know to have been consul a.d.142. We are at once led to reject Eusebius's date as placing the inadmissible interval of 24 or 25 years between the consulship and proconsulate. Waddington made out a probable case for a.d.155, and an additional argument appears decisive. The martyrdom is stated to have taken place on Sat. Feb.23, and among the possible years 155 is the only one in which Feb.23 so fell. The reading of this chronological date is not free from variations. The |great sabbath| would in Christian times be thought to mean the Sat. in Easter week, and as Easter could not occur in Feb. there was an obvious temptation to alter Mar. into May, but none to make the opposite change, and we have independent knowledge that Feb.23 was the day on which the Eastern church celebrated the martyrdom. But we do not know why Feb.23 should be a |great| Sabbath. We believe the true explanation to be that the Latin date in this note is not of the same antiquity as the date by the Macedonian month. Probably Pionius, when he recovered the very ancient copy of the martyrdom, translated the date 2nd Xanthicus into one more widely intelligible and thus determined the date of subsequent commemorations. We accept, then, the 2nd Xanthicus as an original note of time faithfully preserved by a scribe who did not understand its meaning, because he interpreted according to the usage of his own day.

When we have abandoned the date Sat. Feb.23 we lose one clue to fixing the exact date of the martyrdom, but we gain another. Since Nisan 2nd was Sat. the year must be one in which that lunar month commenced on a Friday. The only such years within the necessary limits were 155 and 159, and 155 again agrees best with the usual interval between consulship and proconsulate. The date Apr.8, which a.d.159 would require, is likely, moreover, to be too late. The chief difficulty raised by the date 155 is that if we adopt it the chronology of the Roman bishops obliges us to put Polycarp's visit in the last year of his life and the first of the episcopate of Anicetus.

For the literature connected with Polycarp see bp. Lightfoot's ed. of Ignatius and Polycarp. An ed. of Polycarp's remains by G. Jacobson is in Patr. Apost. (Clar. Press, 2 vols.). A small popular treatise on St. Polycarp by B. Jackson is pub. by S. P.C. K. Cf. also 7.ahn, Forschungen, iv.249; Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.-Chr. Lat.1897 (ii.1, 334).

[G.S.]

Polycarpus, Moyses of Aghel
Polycarpus (5). Moyses of Aghel (c.550), in a Letter to Paphnutius prefatory to his Syriac version of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexandria, prepares his readers to find variations from the Peshitto in Cyril's citations of Scripture after the Greek, by referring them to |the translation of the N.T. and of David into Syriac| from the Greek, which |the Chorepiscopus Polycarpus made for Xenaias [Philoxenus] of Mabug| (Assem. ii. p.82; see also Dr. Ign. Guidi in Rendiconti della R. Academia dei Lincei, 1886, p.397). Now we know from Gregory Bar-hebraeus (Prooem. in Horr. Mystt.) that, |after the Peshitto, the N.T. was more accurately translated again from the Greek at Mabug in the days of Philoxenus.| The same facts are stated in a note purporting to be written by THOMAS OF HARKEL in 616, appended in slightly varying forms to many MSS. of the version of the N.T. known as the Harklensian, one of which (Assem. xi., now Cod. Vat.268) is probably (Bernstein, Das Heil. Evang. des Joh. p.2) of the 8th cent. In this MS., and others, the note gives also the date of this Philoxenian version, a.d.508. In all of them it proceeds to describe the Harklensian version as based on this -- in fact a revision of it; and the same description in more direct terms is given by Bar-hebraeus in two places in his Chronicon Eccl. (i.49, ii.22; Assem. ii. pp.334, 411). We may safely infer that this earlier version was made by the Polycarp named by Moyses (and by no other writer) at the instance of his bishop, Philoxenus, the great Monophysite leader (485-522). The aim of Philoxenus in having the version made was probably, as the remark of Moyses suggests, to enable Syriac-speaking Monophysites to read the Scriptures as they were read by those Greek Fathers whom he owned as authorities and by their Greek-speaking brethren within the Antiochene Patriarchate. It does not appear that the translation shewed, or was ever impugned as shewing, a doctrinal bias.

Of the Philoxenian N.T. as it was before Thomas of Harkel revised it, we only know with certainty the few small fragments of St. Paul recovered by Wiseman from the margin of his MS. of the Karkaphensian Syriac, and pub. by him in Horae Syriacae (p.178, n.11).

It seems highly probable that we have a considerable portion of this original Philoxenian, in the version of the four minor Catholic Epistles (II. Peter, II. and III. John, and Jude) not included in the Peshitto though printed with it in the Polyglotts and in most Syriac New Testaments -- first published by Pococke (1630) from a MS. of no great age (Bodl. Or.119). These four Epistles in the version in question are found also in a few Paris MSS. (see Zotenberg's Catal.), in one (formerly Wetstein's) at Amsterdam, in Lord Crawford's MS. in the Cambridge MS. (Oo. i.1, 2), and in several MSS. in Brit. Mus.; one of which, Add.14623 (7), written 823, is the oldest extant copy of this version. It is included also in the |Williams MS.| of the N.T. Epistles, whence Prof. Hall issued it in photographic facsimile. This version is distinct from the Harklensian rendering of the same Epistles, which, however, though more servilely exact and grecised, is unmistakably founded on it. As then we have in this version the unmistakable basis of the Harklensian, and as the Harklensian is known to have been a revision of the Philoxenian, the identity of this version with the Philoxenian proper (as distinguished from the Philoxenian usually so-called, viz. the Harklensian revision) follows. We have then the materials for judging of Polycarp's merits as a translator, and we find reason to estimate them highly. The translation is in the main accurate and close without being servile. Dr. Scrivener (Intro. to N.T. p.646, ed.3) justly describes it as one which |well deserves careful study . . . of great interest and full of valuable readings,| siding as it does frequently with the oldest Greek uncials. Here also we have material to determine the mutual relation between his work and Thomas's revision of it, and we conclude that the latter work is not (as has been taken for granted by many) a merely corrected re-issue of the earlier one, with merely linguistic alterations in the text and variants inserted on its margin; but is substantially a new version, proceeding on the lines of the former, but freely quitting them when the translator saw fit.

We are not informed what O.T. books were included in the work of Polycarp. Moyses mentions only his version of the Psalms, which is lost. But we have conclusive evidence that a Philoxenian Isaiah also existed; for a rendering of Is. ix.6, differing from the Hexapla and from the Hebrew, but closely agreeing with a reading found in several MSS. of the LXX. (Holmes's 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 90, 93, 106, 147, 233), is inserted on the margin of the Ambrosian Syro-Hexapla (8th cent.), and is there introduced as being |from the other text which was rendered into Syriac by the care of Philoxenus, bp. of Mabug,| the word being the same as in the first citation (above) from the Chron. Eccl. of Bar-hebraeus. That the LXX. was in the hands of Syriac writers and translators before the time of Philoxenus is certain. Yet internal evidence conclusively proves that the Hebrew and not the LXX. is the main basis of the Peshitto Psalter.

[J.GW.]

Polychronius, bp. of Apamea
Polychronius (4), brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia and bp. of Apamea on the Orontes in Syria Secunda. He belonged to a wealthy family of position at Antioch, and the literary character of his remains indicates that his early education was liberal and many-sided. A Polychronius was among the correspondents of Libanius (Epp.27, 207, 228, etc.), but that he was the same is more than doubtful. That our Polychronius fell more or less directly under the influence of Diodore seems certain. Polychronius was probably younger than Theodore; at any rate his consecration as bp. was some ten years the later. In the see of Apamea he must have followed Agapetus, who succeeded Marcellus a.d.398 (Theod. H. E. v.27; Hist. Relig. § 3). He was still bishop when his brother died, a.d.428 (cf. Theod. H. E. v.40). But within the next three years he had died or otherwise vacated the see, for in the records of the council of Ephesus Alexander is bp. of Apamea (Mansi, iv.1235, 1270). Both Le Quien (Oriens Christ. ii.911) and Gams (Series Episc. p.436) strangely omit Polychronius from their lists of the bps. of Apamea. The testimony of Theodoret, however, is unequivocal, and is that of the contemporary bishop of a neighbouring see. The city of Apamea was raised by Theodosius II. to metropolitan rank (Joh. Malal. Chronogr. xiv.; Migne, Patr. Gk. xcvii.543) and the see attained a corresponding dignity. In the history of the church, however, the name of Polychronius occupies a comparatively insignificant place. Our knowledge of him is drawn almost exclusively from the scanty encomiums of Theodoret re-echoed by Cassiodorus and Nicephorus. We must be content to learn that, as bishop, he was characterized by the excellence of his rule, grace of oratory, and conspicuous purity of life (Theod. H. E. v.40; cf. Cassiod. Hist. Tripart. x.34; Niceph. xiv.30).

It has been generally assumed that the bp. of Apamea is identical with the recluse of the same name in Theodoret's Religious History (§ 24). But such evidence as we possess points in an opposite direction.

As a disciple of the school of Antioch, Polychronius would naturally apply himself to Biblical exegesis. No traces occur of any comments by him on N.T., but the catenae teem with scholia upon O.T. bearing his name. The following have been ascribed to him: (1) Scholia on the Pentateuch in the catena of Nicephorus. (2) Prologue and fragments of a commentary on job. (3) Scholia on the Proverbs. (4) A MS. exposition of Ecclesiastes, said to be preserved in several European libraries. (5) Scholia on the Canticles. (6) Scholia on Jeremiah. (7) An exposition of Ezekiel, cited by Joannes Damascenus (De Imag. iii.; Migne, Patr. Gk. xciv.1380, Poluchroniou ek tes eis ton Iezekiel hermeneias). This work happily survives in an almost complete form, and has been published by Mai (Nov. Patr. Bibl. vii. p.2, pp.92 seq.). (8) A commentary on Daniel, quoted in 9th cent. by Nicephorus (Pitra, Spic. Solesm. i. p.352).

Of these remains the scholia on Proverbs, Canticles, and Jeremiah are of more than doubtful genuineness. Those on Proverbs and Canticles are in some MSS. ascribed to |Polychronius the Deacon,| and all these collections are characterized by a partiality for allegorical and mystical interpretations quite alien to the instincts of the Antiochenes.

The style of Polychronius has been described (Bardenhewer, Polychronius, p.36) as clear and concise, contrasting favourably with the loose and complex manner of his brother Theodore, a criticism which agrees with the verdict of Theodoret (supra). As an expositor Polychronius follows the
historico-grammatical method of his school, condemning expressly the Alexandrian tendency to convert history into allegory. |His manner of exposition is scholarly and serious, breathing at the same time an air of deep piety.| So Mai, who points out the fulness of historical illustration in his commentary on Daniel. His comments are based (the book of Daniel excepted) on the LXX., but he calls in the aid of Symmachus and Theodotion; and the frequency of his references to the Hebrew, as well as the remarkable fragment on the |obscurity of Scripture| among the extant fragments of his commentary on job, shew some acquaintance with that language. With regard to the canon, Polychronius assumes an independent attitude. Against his brother he stoutly maintains the historical character of the narrative of job, but discriminates between the Heb. Daniel and the Greek additions, refusing to comment upon the Song of the Three Children as not being in the original.

Of his doctrinal standpoint little can be learnt from his published remains. His temper was not controversial, and he has no place in the history of polemical theology -- a circumstance which has saved him from the stigma of heterodoxy, but consigned his life and works to comparative obscurity.

[H.B.S.]

Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus
Polycrates (1), bp. of Ephesus in the last decade of 2nd cent. When Victor of Rome sought to unify the practice of the whole Christian world in the matter of Easter celebration, he first asked for meetings of bishops in different places to report on the practice of their localities. This request was made in the name of his church, as we learn from the use of the plural in the reply of Polycrates. From every other place, as far as we can learn, the answer was that they celebrated the feast of our Lord's Resurrection on no other day than Sunday; but Polycrates, writing in the name of the bishops of Asia, declared that they had preserved untampered the tradition to celebrate only on the 14th day of the month, the day when the Jewish people put away their leaven. He appeals to the authority of the great luminaries which the Asian church could boast, and whose bodies lay among them, Philip, one of the twelve apostles, and his three daughters, John, who lay on our Lord's breast, a priest who wore the petalon, Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito, all of whom had observed the 14th day, according to the Gospel, walking according to the rule of faith. Polycrates himself had followed the traditions of his kindred, seven of whom had been bishops before him, and had been confirmed in his view by his own study of the whole Scripture and by conference with brethren from all the world. Although his letter bore no signature but his own, he claims that it had received the assent of a great number of bishops (Eus. H. E. v.24). For the sequel see IRENAEUS.

[G.S.]

Pomponia Graecina
Pomponia Graecina, one of the earliest and most distinguished Roman converts. Tacitus (Annals, xiii.32) tells us, referring to a.d.57 or 58, that Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished lady, wife of the Plautius who returned from Britain with an ovation, was accused of some foreign superstition and handed over to her husband's judicial decision. Following ancient precedent, he heard his wife's cause in the presence of kinsfolk, involving, as it did, her legal status and character, and reported that she was innocent. She lived a long life of unbroken melancholy. After the murder of Julia, Drusus's daughter, by Messalina's treachery, for 40 years she wore only the attire of a mourner. For this, during Claudius's reign, she escaped unpunished, and it was afterwards counted a glory to her. This is the only notice of her in ancient literature. She came into prominence through De Rossi's discoveries in the catacomb of Callistus (Roma Sotterranea, ii.360-364). De Rossi identified her with St. Lucina (of. Aubé, Hist. des perséc. t. i. p 180). Cf. for other notices Brownlow and Northcote's Roma Sott. t. i. pp.82, 83, 278-282. De Rossi (op. cit. t. i. pp.306-351) discusses the crypt and family of St. Lucina at great length (cf. also his Bullettino di Archeol. Crist. passim).

[G.T.S.]

Pontianus, bp. of Rome
Pontianus (3), bp. of Rome from July (?) 21, 230, to Sept.28, 235. These dates, given in the Liberian Catalogue, are probably correct, though later recessions of the Pontifical give them differently. The same record states that he was, with Hippolytus a presbyter, banished to Sardinia, which it describes as |nociva insula,| implying possibly that he was sent to the mines there. His banishment doubtless took place under Maximinus, who succeeded Alexander after the assassination of the latter in May 235. The date, Sept.28, 235 was probably that of his deprivation only.

His only episcopal act of which anything needs to be said is his probable assent to the condemnation of Origen by Demetrius of Alexandria. Jerome (Ep. ad Paulam, xxix. in Benedict. ed.; Ep. xxxiii. in ed. Veron.) says of Origen: |For this toil what reward did he get? He is condemned by the bp. Demetrius. Except the priests of Palestine Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia, the world consents to his condemnation. Rome herself assembles a senate [meaning apparently a synod] against him.| The condemnation of Origen by Demetrius being supposed (though not with certainty) to have been c.231, the Roman bishop who assembled the synod was most probably Pontianus. Two spurious epistles are assigned to him.

[J.B -- Y.]

Pontitianus, a soldier
Pontitianus, a soldier, perhaps of the praetorian guard, an African by birth and a Christian, who indirectly contributed much towards the conversion of St. Augustine, who relates in his Confessions how one day, while he was at Milan with Alypius, Pontitianus came, as it seemed by accident, to visit his countrymen, and found on the table a book containing the writings of St. Paul, and having expressed some surprise, informed the friends that he was a Christian and constantly prayed to God both in public worship and at home. The conversation then turned upon Anthony the Egyptian monk, of whose history Pontitianus knew much more than they did. He told them how, when he was at Trèves, in attendance on the emperor, with three comrades he went to the public gardens. Having separated, two of them met again at the dwelling of a recluse, and found there an account of St. Anthony, which one read to the other until he was stirred to relinquish his military life and enlist in the service of God as a monk, and prevailed on his companion to join him. Pontitianus and the fourth member of the party coming up, the other two endeavoured to persuade them to follow their example, but without success. They returned to the palace while the disciples of St. Anthony remained behind. We hear no more of Pontitianus; for the sequel see AUGUSTINE (Aug. Conf. viii.6, 7).

[H.W.P.]

Pontius, a deacon of Carthage
Pontius (2), Mar.8, a deacon of Carthage. We know him only from his Vita Cypriani, prefixed to all editions of St. Cyprian's works. He was chosen by Cyprian to accompany him into exile to Curubis (cc. xi. and xii.; cf. Dodwell's Dissertationes Cyprianicae, iv.21). The Vita is evidently an authentic record. Its style is rugged, and in places very obscure; yet presents all internal marks of truth and antiquity. It uses all the correct technical terms of Roman criminal law, and refers to all the usual forms observed in criminal trials. Jerome, in his Liber de Vir. Ill. c.68, describes the Vita of Pontius as |egregium volumen vitae et passionis Cypriani.|

[G.T.S.]

Porphyrius, patriarch of Antioch
Porphyrius (4), patriarch of Antioch, a.d.404-413, succeeded Flavian (Socr. H. E. vii.9), and is described in the dialogue which goes under the name of Palladius as a man of infamous character, who had disgraced the clerical profession by intimacy with the scum of the circus (Pallad. Dial. p.143). Although his character was notorious, by his cleverness and adroit flattery he obtained considerable influence with the magistrates, and gained the confidence of some leading bishops of the province. Flavian's death having occurred almost contemporaneously with Chrysostom's exile, it became vitally important to the anti-Flavian cabal to have the vacant throne of Antioch filled with a man who would carry out their designs for the complete crushing of Flavian's adherents. Porphyry was chosen. To clear the field Constantius, the trusted friend of Chrysostom, whom the people of Antioch marked out as Flavian's successor, was accused at Constantinople as a disturber of the public peace. By his powerful influence with the party then dominant about the court, Porphyry obtained an imperial rescript banishing Constantius to the Oasis. Constantius anticipated this by fleeing to Cyprus (ib.145). Porphyry then managed to get into his hands Cyriacus, Diophantus, and other presbyters of the orthodox party who were likely to be troublesome, and seized the opportunity of the Olympian festival at Antioch, when the population had poured forth to the spectacles of Daphne, to lock himself and his three consecrators, Acacius, Antiochus, and Severianus, whom he had kept hiding at his own house, with a few of the clergy, into the chief church, and to receive consecration at their hands. The indignant Antiochenes next morning attacked the house of Porphyry, seeking to burn it over his head. The influence of Porphyry secured the appointment of a savage officer as captain of the city guards, who by threats and violence drove the people to the church (ib.147). Forewarned of his real character, pope Innocent received Porphyry's request for communion with silence (ib.141). Porphyry was completely deserted by the chief clergy and all the ladies of rank of Antioch, who refused to approach his church and held their meetings clandestinely (ib.149). In revenge Porphyry obtained a decree, issued by Arcadius Nov.18, 404, sentencing all who refused communion with Arsacius, Theophilus, and Porphyry to be expelled from the churches, and instructing the governor of the province to forbid their holding meetings elsewhere (Soz. H. E. viii.24; Cod. Theod.16, t. iv. p.103). His efforts to obtain the recognition of the Antiochenes proving fruitless, while Chrysostom's spiritual power in exile became the greater for all his efforts to crush it, Porphyry's exasperation drove him to take vengeance on Chrysostom. Through his machinations and those of Severianus, orders were issued for the removal of Chrysostom from Cucusus to Pityus, during the execution of which the aged saint's troubles ended by death (Pallad. Dial. p.97). Porphyry's own death is placed by Clinton (Fast. Rom. ii.552) in 413 (cf. Theod. H. E. iii.5). He was succeeded by Alexander, by whom the long distracted church was united. It is a misfortune that the chief and almost only source for the character of Porphyry is the violent pamphlet of Palladius, whose warm partisanship for Chrysostom unduly blackens all his opponents, and refuses them a single redeeming virtue. That Porphyry was not altogether the monster this author represents may be concluded from the statement of the calm and amiable Theodoret, that he |left behind him| at Antioch |many memorials of his kindness and of his remarkable prudence | (Theod. H. E. v.35), as well as by a still stronger testimony in his favour in Theodoret's letter to Dioscorus, when he calls him one |of blessed and holy memory, who was adorned both with a brilliant life and an acquaintance with divine doctrines| (Theod. Ep.83). Fragments of a letter addressed to Porphyry by Theophilus of Alexandria, recommending him to summon a synod, when some were seeking to revive the heresy of Paul of Samosata, are found in Labbe (Concil. p.472).

[E.V.]

Porphyrius, bp. of Gaza
Porphyrius (5), bp. of Gaza, a.d.395-420. According to his biographer Mark, he was born at Thessalonica c.352, of a good family. His parents were Christians, and took care to have him instructed in the Scriptures as well as in secular learning. When about 25 he retired to the desert of Scete in Egypt, which, at the end of 5 years, he left for Jerusalem, and passed another 5 years in a cavern near the Jordan. A painful disease, brought on by his austerities, compelled him to revisit Jerusalem, where he made the acquaintance of Mark, who became his devoted disciple and companion. By Porphyry's desire Mark visited Thessalonica, and turned the proceeds of Porphyry's share of his paternal property into money, the whole of which, on his return, Porphyry distributed to the poor and to various monasteries, supporting himself by manual labour. About his 40th year he. reluctantly received ordination from John, bp. of Jerusalem, who committed to his guardianship the sacred relic of the True Cross. After a presbyterate of three years, in 395 on the death of Aeneas he with still greater reluctance became bp. of Gaza, being consecrated by John of Caesarea, who had sent for him on the pretext of consulting him on some scriptural difficulty. The people of Gaza were then almost all pagan, and the position of a zealous Christian bishop was one of no small difficulty and even danger. The cessation of a severe drought at the beginning of the 2nd year of his episcopate, Jan.326, was attributed to his prayers and those of the Christians, and caused the conversion of a number of the inhabitants. This was succeeded by other conversions, arousing great exasperation among the heathen population, which vented itself in a severe persecution. Porphyry endured their ill-treatment with the utmost meekness. At the same time he despatched his deacon Mark and his minister Borocas to Constantinople, who, through the powerful advocacy of Chrysostom, obtained the emperor's order to destroy the idols and close the temples. This was carried out by an imperial commissioner, who, however, it was asserted, was bribed to spare the principal idol named Marnas, and to wink at the entrance of the worshippers into the temple by a secret passage. To these events Jerome refers in a letter to Laeta (Hieron. H.E.. vii. p.54). The idolaters still remained the dominant section, and were able to shut out Christians from all lucrative offices and to molest them in the enjoyment of their property. Porphyry took this so much to heart that he exhorted his metropolitan, John of Caesarea, to allow him to resign. John consoled him, and went with him to Constantinople to obtain an order for the demolition not of the idols alone, but of the temples themselves, arriving Jan.7, 401. Chrysostom was then high in the empress Eudoxia's favour, and their suit was successful. The bishops reached Majuma, the port of Gaza, on May 1, and were followed in ten days by a commissioner named Cynegius, accompanied by the governor and a general officer with a large body of troops, by whom the imperial orders for the destruction of the temples were executed. In ten days the whole were burnt, and finally the magnificent temple of Marnas, and on the ground it occupied the foundations of a cruciform church were laid according to a plan furnished by Eudoxia, who also supplied the funds for its erection. The church was 5 years building, and was dedicated by Porphyry on Easter Day, 405 or 406, being called |Eudoxiana| after its foundress. Jerome refers to its erection (Hieron. in Esaiam, xvii.1. vii. t. v. p.86). The heathen population, irritated at the destruction of their sacred buildings and at the spread of Christianity in Gaza, raised a tumult, in which several Christians were killed, and Porphyry himself barely escaped with his life. We may certainly identify him with one of the two bishops of his name who attended the anti-Pelagian synod at Diospolis in 415 (Aug. in Julian. lib. i. c.15). He died Feb.26, 419 or 420. He is said to have been indefatigable in instructing the people of Gaza in a simple and popular style, based entirely on Holy Scripture. Migne, Patr. Lat. xlv. pp.1211 ff.; Ceiller, Aut. eccl. vi.329; Tillem. Mém. eccl. x. pp.703-716.

[E.V.]

Possidius, bp. of Calama
Possidius, bp. of Calama, a town of Numidia, S. W. of Hippo, between it and Cirta, but nearer Hippo (Aug. c. Petil. ii.99; Kalma, Shaw, Trav. p.64). His own account represents him as a convert from paganism, becoming on his conversion an inmate of the monastery at Hippo, probably c.390. Thenceforward he lived in intimate friendship with St. Augustine until the latter's death in 430 (Possid. Vita Aug. praef. and cc.12, 31). About 400 he became bp. of Calama. He seems to have established a monastery there, and, probably early in his episcopate, consulted Augustine on (a) the ornaments to be used by men and women, and especially earrings used as amulets; (b) the ordination of some one who had received Donatist baptism (Aug. Epp.104, 4, and 245). In 401 or 402 a council was held at Carthage, at which Possidius was present, and challenged in vain Crispinus, Donatist bp. of Calama, to discuss publicly issues between the two parties. After this Possidius, though he modestly conceals his own name, while going to a place in his diocese called Figulina, was attacked by CRISPINUS, a presbyter, and narrowly escaped alive (Aug. Ep.103; Possid. Vit.12). In 407 he was one of a committee of seven appointed by Xanthippus, primate of Numidia, at the request of Maurentius, bp. of Tubursica, to decide a question, of whose nature we are not informed, but which was at issue between himself and the seniors of Nova Germania (Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii.34; Bardouin, Conc. ii.922; Bruns, Conc. i.185). In 408 Possidius was again in trouble and personal danger, in consequence of the disturbances at Calama described above. In 409, on June 14, a council was held at Carthage, and a deputation of four bishops, Florentinus, Possidius, Praesidius, and Benantus, was appointed to request the protection of the emperor against the Donatists. On this occasion Possidius conveyed a letter from Augustine to Paulinus of Nola, but nothing more is known as to the journey of the deputation or their interview, if any, with the emperor, who was then at Ravenna. In 410, however, an edict was issued by Honorius on or about the day on which Rome was taken by Alaric, viz. Aug.26, to Heraclian, count of Africa, to restrain by penalties all enemies of the Christian faith, and another of a similar nature on Oct.14, 410, to Marcellinus, the president of the conference in 411 (Aug. Ep.95, i.; 105, i.; Cod. Theod. xvi.5, 51, and ii.3; Baron.410, 48, 49). At the conference Possidius was one of the seven Catholic managers (Coll. Carth. ap. Mon. Vet. Don. liii.1; ii.29; iii.29, 148, 168, ed. Oberthür). He was with Augustine at Hippo in 412 (Aug. Ep.137, 20) and in 416 signed at the council of Mileum the letter sent to pope Innocent concerning the Pelagian heresy (Aug. Ep.176). He also joined with Augustine, Aurelius, Alypius, and Evodius in a letter to the same on the same subject (ib.181, 182, 183). He was at the meeting or council of bishops held at Caesarea on Sept.29, 418. St. Augustine mentions that Possidius (c.425) brought to Calama and placed in a memorial building there some relics of St. Stephen, by which many cures were wrought (Civ. D. xii..8, 312, 20). When the Vandals invaded Africa, he took refuge in Hippo with other bishops, and there attended on St. Augustine in his last illness until his death, a.d.430, in the third month of the siege. He has left a biographical sketch of Augustine, whose unbroken friendship he enjoyed for 40 years, being his faithful ally and devoted admirer. This sketch gives many particulars of great interest as to Augustine's mode of life, and a description, simple but deeply pathetic and impressive, of his last days and death. Though few men's lives are written in their own works more fully than that of Augustine, yet history and the church would have greatly missed the simple, modest, and trustworthy narrative, gathered in great measure from Augustine himself, which Possidius has left us. It was apparent ly published, not immediately after the death of Augustine, but before 439, as he speaks of Carthage and Cirta as still exempt from capture by the barbarians, and in Oct.439 Carthage was taken by Genseric (Possid. c.28; Clinton, F. R.). Possidius has also left a list of Augustine's works which, though very full and compiled with great care, does not pretend to be complete and of which some have not yet been discovered. It is given in the last vol. of Migne's ed. of Augustine's works. Prosper relates in his Chronicle that Possidius, together with Novatus, Severianus, and other bishops of less note, resisted the attempts of Genseric to establish Arian doctrine in Africa, and was driven with them from his see a.d.437. Baron.437, i.; Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii.140; Ceillier, ix.564; Tillem. vol. xiii.354.

[H.W.P.]

Posthumianus, of Aquitania
Posthumianus (2), a friend of Sulpicius Severus of Gaul and Paulinus of Nola, was a native of Aquitania, and made at least two journeys to the East. After the first, when he made the acquaintance of Jerome at Bethlehem, he appears to have visited Campania to see Paulinus (S. Paulini, Epp.16 in Migne. Patr. Lat. lxi.227). He sailed from Narbonne in 401 or 402 on his second voyage, of which a full and interesting account is in bk. i. of the Dialogues of Sulpicius Severus (Patr. Lat. xx.183), in which Posthumianus with Severus and Gallus are the speakers. In five days he reached Carthage, where he visited the tomb of St. Cyprian. Detained between Africa and Cyrene by bad weather, he landed to explore the country, which was inhabited by a very primitive tribe, who, however, were Christians, and was hospitably entertained by a priest. Alexandria was then convulsed by the quarrel between the patriarch Theophilus and the monks about the writings of Origen, and Posthumianus went on by land to Bethlehem, where he spent six months with Jerome, whom he praises highly both for virtue and learning. Posthumianus then returned to Alexandria, and thence went to the Thebaid, spending a year and seven months visiting its monasteries and hermitages. He penetrated into the Sinaitic peninsula, saw the Red Sea, and ascended Mount Sinai. After three years' absence he returned, taking 30 days from Alexandria to Marseilles. He may have been the priest of that name who was present at the death of Paulinus (Uranius, Ep. in Patr. Lat. liii.861).

[F.D.]

Potimiaena, a martyr at Alexandria
Potimiaena (June 28), one of the most celebrated martyrs at Alexandria in the persecution of Severus, being a virgin distinguished alike for her beauty, chastity, and courage. Eusebius (H. E. vi.5) relates how she was cruelly tortured, and death finally inflicted by burning pitch poured slowly about her from feet to head. Her story is also given by Palladius (Hist. Laus.3).

[G.T.S.]

Pothinus, bp. of Lyons, martyr
Pothinus (Photinus, Greg. Tur. Fotinus), martyr, first bp. of Lyons in the 2nd cent. Who consecrated him, and in what year, is unknown, though a desire to find an apostolic foundation has suggested to different writers the names of SS. Peter, John, and Polycarp His name suggests that he was a Greek. Of his episcopate we have no record beyond the account of his martyrdom by pagans, with 47 others, contained in the letter of the Christians of Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, which Eusebius preserves. Oppressed with infirmities and more than go years old, he was dragged by soldiers before the tribunal, where he comported himself with dignity. To the question of the president what the Christians' God might be, he replied, |If thou wert worthy, thou shouldst know.| The blows and ill-usage of the crowd as he was carried back to prison caused his death two days later. His successor was St. Irenaeus. Eus. H. E. v. x; Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. i.27; Mirac. lib. i.; de Glor. Mart.49, 50 sqq.; Gall. Christ. iv.4.

[S.A.B.]

Praedestinatus, an author
Praedestinatus. The author known by this name wrote an anonymous work, first pub. in 1643 from a MS. in the Cathedral Library of Rheims by Sirmond, who somewhat inappropriately gave it its title from those against whom it was directed, and several times reprinted, e.g. by Migne (Patr. Lat. liii.), and bk. i. by Oehler in his Corpus Haeresiologicum.

The author complains that men were passing themselves off as of the household of faith who really were most treacherous enemies of the church. These men taught that certain were by God's foreknowledge so predestined to death that neither Christ's passion nor baptism, faith, hope, nor charity could help them. They might fast, pray, and give alms, but nothing could avail them, because they had not been predestined to life. On the other hand, those who had received this predestination might neglect and despise all righteousness, yet the gate of life would be opened to them without knocking, while against others who knocked, nay shouted, for admission, it would remain firmly closed. A work by one of these heretics had lately fallen into the writer's hands, and it was necessary to drag it to light and completely refute it. This accordingly is done in the present treatise, consisting of three books. In bk. i. the author clears himself of all suspicion of sympathy with heresy of any kind by enumerating and reprobating the 90 heresies by which up to his time Christ's truth had been perverted, the last and worst being that of the Predestinarians. It determines limits for the date of the book that in this list the last but one is the Nestorian heresy. From this and the silence about Eutychianism we may infer that it was written between 431 and 449, just the period when the semi-Pelagian controversy was most active. The author professes that his heretical catalogue was epitomized from Hyginus, Polycrates, Africanus, Hesiodus, Epiphanius, and Philaster, who, he tells us, wrote against different heresies in this chronological order. It is remarkable that the first four of these confutations of heresy are not mentioned by any one else, but still more remarkable that the writer is silent as to his obligations to the tract on heresies which Augustine addressed to Quodvultdeus, although his list of 90 heresies agrees, article by article, with Augustine's list of 88, with the addition of the two later heresies, Nestorianism and Predestinarianism, while the substance of each article is manifestly taken from Augustine. These unfavourable suspicions of the writer's literary morality are confirmed as we proceed. It is the author's plan to mention with each heresy the name of the orthodox writer who refutes it. We are thus told of a number of personages whom no one else mentions -- Diodorus of Crete who refuted the Secundians, Philo the Alogi, Theodotus of Pergamus the Colorbasians, Crato, a Syrian bishop, who refuted the Theodotians, Tranquillus the Noetians, Euphranon of Rhodes the Severians, and a host of others of whom we should expect to hear elsewhere if they were not imaginary personages. Moreover, when Praedestinatus ascribes the confutation to real persons his assertions are usually chronologically impossible. Thus he makes the apostle Thomas confute Saturninus, Barnabas in Cyprus the Carpocratians; he makes Alexander, who was bp. of Rome at the very beginning of the 2nd cent., write against Heracleon, who lived in the latter half of the century; the Tertullianists are condemned by Soter, who must have been dead 30 years before Tertullian separated from the church; the imaginary heresiologist, Hesiod of Corinth, is made to be the bishop who first opposed Arius, and in answer to whose prayers that heretic died. We have thus before us, not inaccurate history but unscrupulous and unskilful invention, and it can only be from want of acquaintance with his character as a writer that he is ever cited as an historical authority.

[G.S.]

Praxeas, a heretic
Praxeas, a somewhat mysterious heretic about whom various theories have been held. He was a Monarchian and Patripassian. Tertullian wrote a treatise against him and places his scene of activity first of all at Rome, but never mentions Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Sabellius or Callistus. On the other hand, Hippolytus, who denounces these in his controversial works for the very same tenets, never once mentions Praxeas as teaching at Rome or anywhere else. Some have regarded Praxeas as simply a nick-name. Thus De Rossi (Bullet.1866, p.70) identifies him with Epigonus, Hagemann (Gesch. der röm. Kirche. § 234) with Callistus. Döllinger however (Hippol. u. Kallist. § 198) and Lipsius (Chronolog. der röm. Bisch. § 175) maintain that Praxeas was a real person who first of all started the Monarchian and Patripassian heresy in Rome, but so long before the age of Hippolytus that his name and memory had faded in that city. They fix his period of activity in Rome during the earliest years of Victor, a.d.189-198, or even the later years of his predecessor Eleutherus. This explanation, however, seems to ignore the fact that Hippolytus must have been a full-grown man all through Victor's episcopate, as he expressly asserts (Refut. ix.6) that he and Callistus were about the same age. Praxeas remained but a short time in Rome. and the shortness of his stay offers a better explanation of Hippolytus's silence. He then proceeded to Carthage, where he disseminated his views. Tertullian (adv. Prax.) attacks the heresy under the name of Praxeas, the local teacher, but was really attacking Zephyrinus and Callistus. The facts of his life we gather from Tertullian's notices in c.1. He was a confessor from Asia Minor, where he had been imprisoned for the faith. Asia Minor was then the seed-plot of Monarchian views. He came to Rome when the Montanist party had just gained over the pope. Praxeas converted the pope back to his own opinion, which was hostile to the Montanists. Most critics agree that the pope so converted by Praxeas was Eleutherus: cf. Bonwetsch's Montanismus, § 174; Hilgenfeld's Ketzergeschichte, p.569. Dr. Salmon, however, maintains that it was Zephyrinus. [[503]MONTANUS.] By this, says Tertullian, Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome, |he drove away prophecy and he introduced heresy. He put to flight the Paraclete and he crucified the Father.| He then went to Carthage, where he induced some to adopt his opinions. Tertullian opposed him prior to 202, according to Hilgenfeld (l.c. p.618), and converted Praxeas himself, who acknowledged his error in a document extant among the Catholic party when Tertullian wrote. Praxeas then seems to have disappeared from Carthage, while Tertullian joined the Montanists. The controversy some years later broke out afresh, spreading doubtless from Rome, and then Tertullian wrote his treatise, which he nominally addressed against Praxeas as the best known expositor of these views at Carthage, but really against the Patripassian system in general. Hilgenfeld (l.c. p.619) dates this work c.206; Harnack c.210, i.e. about 25 years after the first arrival of Praxeas in Rome; while Dr. Salmon dates it after the death of Callistus in 222: so great is the uncertainty about the chronology of the movement. Harnack's article on |Monarchianismus| in t. x. of Herzog's
Real-Encyclopädie contains a good exposition of the relation of Praxeas to the Patripassian movement; cf. Lipsius Tertullian's Schrift wider Praxeas in Jahrb. für deutsche Theolog. t. xiii. (1869) § 701-724. Among patristic writers the only ones who mention Praxeas are pseudo-Tertullian; August, de Haer.41; Praedestinat.41; and Gennad. de Eccles. Dog.4.

[G.T.S.]

Primasius, bp. of Adrumetum
Primasius, bp. of Adrumetum or Justinianopolis, in the Byzacene province of N. Africa. He flourished in the middle of 6th cent., and exercised considerable influence on the literary activity of the celebrated theological lawyer JUNILIUS, who dedicated to him his Institutes, which spread the views of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the West. Primasius first comes before us in a synod of his province in 541, the decrees of which are known only through Justinian's decrees confirming them, as given in Baronius, Ann.541, n.10-12. He was sent to Constantinople in connexion with the controversy on the Three Chapters c.551. He assisted in the synod which pope Vigilius held against Theodore Ascidas and was still in Constantinople during the session of the fifth general council, but took no part in it,
notwithstanding repeated solicitations (Mansi, ix.199 seq.). He was one of 16 bishops who signed the Constitutum of pope Vigilius, May 14, 553. When, however, Vigilius accepted the decrees of the fifth council, Primasius signed them also. According to Victor Tunun. (Migne's Patr. Lat. t. lxviii. col.959), other motives conspired to bring about this change. He was at first exiled to a convent, and then the death of Boethius primate of the Byzacene aroused his ambition to be his successor. He gained his point, but, returning home, his suffragans denounced him as guilty of sacrilege and robbery. He died soon afterwards. His writings (ib. pp.407-936) embrace commentaries on St. Paul's Epp. and the Apocalypse; likewise a treatise (now lost), de Haeresibus, touching on some points which Augustine did not live to treat with sufficient fullness (Isid. HispaI.Vir. lll. xxii. in ib. lxxxiii.1095; Cave, i.525; Tillem. xiii.927, xvi.21). Our Primasius is sometimes confounded with bp. Primasius of Carthage. The best account of Primasius of Adrumetum is in Kihn's Theodor von Mopsuestia, pp.248-254, where a critical estimate is formed |of the sources of his exegetical works. [CHILIASTS.] Cf. also Zahn, Forschungen, iv.1-224 (1891).

[G.T.S.]

Primianus, Donatist bp. of Carthage
Primianus, Donatist bp. of Carthage, successor to Parmenian, a.d.392. Among many things charged against him by the Maximianists, they alleged that he admitted the Claudianists to communion and, when some of the seniors remonstrated with him, encouraged, if he did not even originate, a riotous attack upon them in a church in which some lost their lives. Further, that he was guilty of various acts of an arbitrary and violent kind, superseding bishops, excommunicating and condemning clergymen without sufficient cause, closing his church doors against the people and the imperial officers, and taking possession of buildings to which he had no right. (Aug. En. in Ps.36, 20; c. Cresc. iv.6, 7, and 7, 9, also 48, 58, and 50, 60; Mon. Vet. Don. xxxv. ed Oberthür.) At the proceedings before the civil magistrate, arising out of the decision of the council of Bagaia, Primian is said to have taunted his opponents with relying on imperial edicts, while his own party brought with them the Gospels only (Aug. Post Coll. xxxi. § 53). When the conference was proposed, he resisted it, remarking with scornful arrogance that |it was not fit that the sons of martyrs should confer with the brood of traditors| (Carth. Coll. iii.116; Aug. Brevic. Coll. iii.4, 4). As one of the seven managers at the conference, a.d.411, on the Donatist side, he helped to delay the opening of the proceedings and to obstruct them during their progress, but showed no facility in debate (Brevic. Coll. ii.30; Carth. Coll. i.104). He passed a just sentence of condemnation on Cyprian, Donatist bp. of Tubursica, for an act of scandalous immorality (Aug. c. Petil. iii.34, 40). See Dr. Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), p 52.

[H.W.P.]

Priscillianus and Priscillianism, Priscillian
Priscillianus and Priscillianism. The Priscillianists, whose doctrines were Manichean and Gnostic in character, were organized as a sect by their founder Priscillian. The spread of the heresy was not wide either in time or space. The sect sprang up and flourished in Spain during the last third of the 4th cent. in the reigns of the emperors Gratian and Maximus. After the synod of Saragossa, 381, it ramified into Aquitaine, but never took deep root beyond the Pyrenees. Where the heresy first appeared in Spain is unrecorded. There it spread through most provinces, especially in cities. The agitation at Cordova, Merida, Avila, Astorga, Saragossa, Toledo, Braga, sufficiently indicates its prevalence and popularity. The council of Bordeaux, 384, followed by the violent measures of Maximus, intensified for a while the enthusiasm of Priscillian's adherents. But in 390, at the synod of Toledo, many leading Priscillianists recanted and were admitted to church communion. The sect continued to diminish in number. Pope Leo I. exerted himself vigorously to repress it. It lingered in Spain till the middle of the 5th cent. After the council of Toledo, 447, and that at Braga in Galicia, 448 especially held against them, they disappear from history. Priscillianism became a remembrance and a suspicion.

Marcus, a native of Memphis in Egypt, introduced the Gnostic and Manichean heresies. Nothing is known of his life beyond his Egyptian origin, his coming to Spain, and his teaching. Two of his followers were Agape, a Spanish lady, and Helpidius, a rhetorician. Their convert was the layman Priscillian, whose place of birth or residence is unknown. He was of good family, wealthy, and well educated. He became at once an ardent proselyte; an apostle of the Oriental doctrines. His character is described by the contemporary historian Sulpicius Severus, in his Sacred History (ii.46). Eloquent, learned, pious, sincere, austere, ardent, and zealous, Priscillian was well fitted to be the apostle and founder of a sect. Modifying and framing the Oriental doctrines into a system of his own, he soon became their able exponent and advocate. Attracting a large following, he organized them into a religious society. Many of the wealthy and noble, and a great number of the people, received his teaching. Some bishops, as well as clergy and laity, became his disciples. The Gnostic mysticism spread rapidly and widely in all Spain.

Among Priscillian's first and most devoted followers were two bishops, Instantius and Salvianus, in the S. of Spain. Adyginus, bp. of Cordova, was the first to oppose the rising sect. He reported the matter to Idatius, bp. of Emerita (Merida), and took counsel with him. Their conference led to an organized movement against the new errors. All S. Spain became agitated by the controversy. Idatius is blamed as too rough and violent. By intolerant severity he promoted rather than prevented the spread of the sect. Adyginus, dissatisfied with his colleague, became rather the protector of the Priscillianists and incurred thereby much reproach and odium. At length a synod was to be held at Caesar-Augusta (Saragossa) on the Ebro, a site sufficiently far north from the localities where the Priscillianists and the orthodox were in hostility to be neutral ground, and also having the advantage of nearness to Gaul. It was proposed to gather there the bishops of Spain and Aquitaine. The synod was held in 380. The Priscillianists did not venture to appear. In their absence their opinions were condemned. The four leaders, Instantius and Salvianus the bishops, Helpidius and Priscillian the laymen, were excommunicated. The bp. of Cordova fell under the lash of the leaders of the synod. He had received into terms of communion some of the heretics. The council anathematized all who shared or connived at the new errors of faith and practice. The task of promulgating the decrees and executing the ecclesiastical sentences was given to Ithacius, bp. of Sossuba. The important and lamentable result of the synod was the assumption by Ithacius of the leadership of the persecuting party.

A preconcerted counter-movement now began on the part of the Priscillianists. At the hands of Instantius and Salvianus, Priscillian received episcopal ordination. His see was Avila (Abila) on the Adaja, a tributary of the Douro, midway between Salamanca and Madrid (Hieron. de Script. Eccl.). This measure of defiance shewed the strength of his party. It led to further progress towards persecution. On behalf of the church authorities, Idacius and Ithacius applied to the secular government. Aid was brought against the heretics. Powers were asked for execution of the decree of the synod, and in 381 Gratian granted a rescript, excluding all heretics from the use of the churches and ordering them to be driven into exile. The Priscillianists were thus cut off from civil protection. Vigorous defensive measures were necessary to their very existence. An appeal was proposed by them to the two most eminent bishops of the West, Damasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan. Their influence, it was hoped, might lead to a rescinding of the imperial decision. Instantius, Salvianus, and Priscillian went to Rome to clear themselves and their party in the papal court. On their way they penetrated into Interior Aquitaine, perhaps to try measures of conciliation among the bishops of that province, who had condemned them unseen and unknown at Saragossa: The seeds of the heresy were sown by them as they travelled. Elusa (Eluso) near Eauze, a town on the Gelise near Auch, is especially mentioned. All the church centres were, however, hostile to them. They were vigorously repulsed from Bordeaux (Burdegala), by the vigilance of bp. Delphinus. On their journey they were joined by many from Gaul whom they had infected with their errors. Euchrocia and her daughter Procula, amongst these, ministered of their substance to Priscillian and his colleagues. A promiscuous crowd of others, especially women, are mentioned. In consequence, injurious reports, probably calumnies, were vigorously circulated against Priscillian and his retinue.

On their arrival at Rome the Priscillianists were repulsed by pope Damasus. They retraced their steps to Milan, and found Ambrose, whose power and reputation were at their height, steadily opposed to them.

The Priscillianists put on a bold front and began aggressive measures against their assailants. The wealth of Priscillian and his followers was liberally employed. |The silver spears| were now in the hands of the partisans on both sides. Macedonius, the master of the offices (magister officiorum), was won over to the interests of Priscillian and his party. By his powerful influence a rescript from Gratian protecting them was obtained. The Priscillianists were to be restored to their churches and sees. Instantius and Priscillian, returning to Spain, regained their sees and churches. All things seemed turned in their favour. Idacius and Ithacius, though for the moment powerless, had not ceased to make a show of resistance. The Priscillianists charged them with causing divisions and disturbing the peace of the church, and Ithacius was compelled to fly. At Trèves resided the Caesar who ruled Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Ithacius escaped thither from Spain. Gregory, the prefect there, warmly espoused his cause and strove to bring the complaints of the orthodox bishops again before Gratian. The Priscillianists had, however, friends at court powerful enough to ward off the danger. The cause was taken out of the hands of Gregory and transferred to the court of Volventius the vicar of Spain.

An unlooked-for political change now came. The overthrow and assassination at Paris of the unpopular Gratian, the usurpation of the purple by Clemens Maximus, his proclamation as emperor by his soldiers in Britain, his triumphant entrance into Gaul, with the consequent official changes, destroyed all the bright hopes of the Priscillianists. The fortunes of their adversaries revived. On the arrival of Maximus at Trèves in 384 Ithacius brought a formal accusation with heavy charges against Priscillian and his followers. Maximus, a Spaniard by birth, listened to the Spanish bishops and reversed the vacillating policy of Gratian, treating the matter not as one of ecclesiastical rivalry, but as one of morality and society. In his letter afterwards to Siricius, who succeeded Damasus in 384 in the see of Rome, he expressly dwells upon these points and glories in the part he had consequently taken against the heresy of Priscillian. Both parties were summoned to a synod at Bordeaux in 385. Instantius and Priscillian were the first to appear. Instantius was declared to have forfeited his bishopric. Priscillian resolved to forestall the expected hostile judgment and |appeal unto Caesar.| No protest was made. The appeal was allowed. A purely spiritual offence was remitted for criminal trial to a secular tribunal. In due course both parties appeared before Maximus at Trèves.

At Trèves there was one at this crisis of the church whose prophetic insight saw the real significance of the issues at stake, Martin, bp. of Tours, whose influence was then at its height. Through his mediation between the contending parties, the trial of Priscillian was delayed, Maximus for a while yielding to his protests, even consenting to promise him that no life should be sacrificed. But at last St. Martin, at the call of other duties, was obliged to withdraw from Trèves. The emperor was now surrounded by other influences. By Idacius and Ithacius, ably supported by two bishops of a like stamp, Magnus and Rufus, powerful at court, Maximus was unremittingly urged to take severe measures.

The trial of the Priscillianists, once resolved upon, was soon brought about and they became a defenceless prey to their enemies. Their |appeal unto Caesar| was truly an appeal to a pitiless Nero. As a stroke of state policy nothing could be wiser in the eyes of the adherents of Maximus than their destruction. Both pagan and Christian authorities attribute mercenary motives to the emperor and state that the possessions of the rich Priscillian and of his followers excited his cupidity (Sulp. Sev. Dialog. iii.9; Panegyr. of Lat. Pac. Drep. on Theodosius, Panegyr. Vet. xvi.29). At the same time there could not be a more brilliant inauguration of the new reign than a vigorous assertion of orthodoxy on the lines of the now famous Theodosian decrees.

Priscillian and his chief followers were condemned to death by the imperial consistory at Trèves. Several others, after confiscation of their goods, were banished to the Scilly Isles, others into Gaul. Priscillian is recorded as the first of those who suffered death (|gladio perempti|). With him died two presbyters, lately become disciples, Felicissimus and Armenius, and Latronianus a poet and Euchrocia the rich and noble matron of Bordeaux. Instantius, deposed from his bishopric by the synod of Bordeaux, and Tiberianus were banished to the desolate Scilly Isles. Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons, were executed. Tertullus, Potamius, and Johannes, as meaner followers who turned king's evidence, were temporarily banished within Gaul.

The immediate consequences were not reassuring to the persecuting party. At Trèves a violent strife arose between the bishops present on the merits of Priscillian's execution. Theognistes, a bishop of independent mind, boldly led the non-contents, refusing church communion to Ithacius and the others guilty of the judicial bloodshed. In Spain the Priscillianist enthusiasm was for a while intensified. The number of followers grew. The bodies of those who had suffered at Trèves were brought to Spain and their obsequies celebrated with great pomp. Priscillian, before revered as a saint, was now, says Sulpicius, worshipped as a martyr. Signs were not wanting, and terrified the orthodox,, that the Priscillianist society aimed at shrouding themselves under the guise of a secret religious association.

Additional severities were proposed. Maximus resolved to send military tribunes to Spain with unlimited powers. They were to investigate charges of heresy, examine heretics, take life and property from the guilty. They were men little likely to temper justice with mercy. At this juncture Martin of Tours returned to Trèves. No efforts could induce him to be reconciled to the promoters and abettors of the late executions. The persuasion and threats of the emperor failing to move him, he was dismissed the imperial presence in anger. Tidings reached Martin that the tribunes had been really sent to Spain. He hurried to the palace, though it was night, and agreed to unite with the bishops in church fellowship. The emperor yielded to his importunity and Martin's firmness and zeal on the side of humanity were rewarded. The tribunes were recalled and the peninsula spared the horrors of a religious proscription.

The schism continued some time between those that approved and those that condemned the severities against Priscillian. For 15 years the contention was extreme, and the merits of the controversy long continued to be canvassed. The violent means had certainly not extinguished the heresy, which seemed even to take deeper root in Spain. In 400 at a council at Toledo many Priscillianists came over and were readmitted to Catholic communion. Amongst these was Dictinnius, a Priscillianist bishop, author of The Scales (Libra), wherein Priscillianist opinions were expounded and advocated. In 415 a Spanish presbyter, Orosius, wrote to Augustine concerning the sect. A long letter of Augustine is extant, written to Ceretius, a bishop, respecting the apocryphal Priscillianist Scriptures, especially a hymn attributed to Christ. Forty years later Turribius, bp. of Astorga, wrote in sorrow and perplexity to pope Leo I., asking advice for dealing with these insidious and dangerous adversaries. Two councils pursuant to Leo's recommendation were held: one at Toledo in 447, the other at Braga in Galicia in 448, where Priscillianism was condemned with the usual anathemas. A last contemporary mention of the Priscillianists comes in combination with the Arians, in the Acts of the council of Braga, in 563.

No ancient writer has given an accurate account of the Priscillianist doctrine. Our knowledge has to be gathered from the meagre accounts of their adversaries, the correspondence of eminent men of the time, the acts and canons of councils, the church histories, and a few verbal allusions in contemporary pagan writers. The Priscillianist system, already sufficiently dark and perplexed, has had new obscurity added by unstinted misrepresentation. The general outline may be made out of their opinions, fantastic allegories, daring cosmogonies, astrological fancies, combined with the severest asceticism. It is easier to compare the general resemblances of their doctrine to Cabalism, Syrian and Egyptian Gnosticism, Manicheism, Persian and Indian Orientalism, than to detect, analyse, and assign the differences.

There are no authentic extant records of the Priscillianist writers. A fragment of a letter of Priscillian himself has come down to us in quotation (Orosii Common. in Aug. Op.). There are allusions to a multitude of apocryphal scriptures which they used, thus differing from most heretical sects in accepting all apocryphal and canonical books as scripture, explaining and adapting them to their purpose in a mystical manner.

Our clearest account of their tenets is in the controversial correspondence slightly later than Priscillian, between Leo the Great and Turribius, bp. of Astorga. The latter summed up the doctrines in 16 articles. Leo replied in a lengthy epistle, commenting seriatim on each proposition (Leo, Ep. xv.).

(1) Their wild cosmical speculations were based on the bold Gnostic and Manichean conceptions of a primeval dualism. The two opposite realms of light and darkness, in eternal antagonism, were their basis.

(2) Their anti-materialism led them very far from the sublime simplicity of Scripture. Perplexed by the insoluble problem of the origin of sin, they indulged in most fantastic dreams and myths.

(3) The astrological fatalism which pope Leo condemned so sternly as subversive of all moral distinctions was a striking peculiarity (Leo, Ep. xv.11-12). They believed the 12 signs of the Zodiac to have a mysterious supremacy over the members of the body.

(4) Their Christology is difficult to gather. If they held a Trinity at all, it was but a Trinity of names. Their adversaries accused them of Arianism and Sabellianism. Leo sharply criticizes their application and interpretation of the Scripture attributive of the Redeemer, |the Only-begotten.|

(5) Their rigid asceticism resulted directly from their idea of the innate evil of matter. Marriage was proscribed; austerities of all sorts required.

(6) Their moral system plainly deserves the charge of dissimulation. Holding an esoteric and exoteric doctrine, they, with some other theosophic sects, affirmed falsehood allowable for a holy end; absolute veracity only binding between fellow-members. To the unenlightened they need not always and absolutely state the whole truth. This looseness of principle they supported by Scripture, distorting, e.g., Eph. iv.25 in support of their practice. It was a Priscillianist habit to affect to agree with the multitude, making allowance for what they considered their fleshly notions, and to conceal from them what they regarded them as incapable of comprehending (Dictinnius in Libra). In the agitation of controversy some church ecclesiastics were in favour of fighting the Priscillianists with their own weapons. Augustine's treatise de Mendacio was expressly written against such laxity. It is easy to see how such practice arose from their principles. We may illustrate it by their Gnostic ideas about Scripture. The Christian Scripture was to them an imperfect revelation. What the Jewish religion was to Christianity, that the
Priscillianists considered Christianity was with regard to their own speculations. As the O.T. was full of types and shadows of Christianity, so the N.T. in their hands became a figurative and symbolical exposition and veil of Priscillianism. The outer form was for the ignorant and profane; the inner truth for the wise and initiated. The grace of faith was fitted only for the rude mass of men; to know was the vocation of the privileged, the spiritual, the elect. A step further led the Priscillianist to disregard moral distinctions and believe himself entitled to prevaricate, which often led to things still worse, in his dealings with the common herd (cf. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, lect. xii. p.196; ix. p.135; Neander, Ch. Hist. ii. p.26). See Priscill. qua Supersunt, etc. accedit Orosii Commonitorum, etc. (Vienna, 1889), in Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xviii.

[M.B.C.]

Priscus, St. archbp. of Lyons
Priscus (11), St., 30th archbp. of Lyons, has been the subject of much controversy. Gregory of Tours, the historian, his contemporary, brings against him the gravest charges. According to the Hist. Franc. (iv.36), he set himself, with his wife Susanna, to persecute and destroy those who had been the friends of his predecessor St. Nicetius, out of malice and jealousy, and never wearied of declaiming against his memory. The Vitae Patrum (viii.5) also has an instance of his contempt for the same prelate, whose chaplain he is said to have been. On the other hand, he is numbered by the church among the saints. He was present at numerous councils, the 4th of Paris in 573, Châlons in 579, Mâcon in 581 or 583, 3rd of Lyons in 581, another at Lyons in 583, Valence in 584 or 585, and the 2nd of Mâcon in 585, at some of which he presided, and at the last was honoured in the preface with the dignified title, very rare in the West, of patriarcha (Mansi, ix.949; Ceillier, xi.896). For these and other reasons the Bollandists (Acta SS. Jun. vi.120-127) refuse credence to Gregory's charges.

[S.A.B.]

Privatus, bp. of Lambaesis
Privatus (2), once bp. of the important but shortlived city of Lambaesis in Numidia, the present Tazzût or Tezzulot (Momms.). He was condemned for heresy and multa et gravia delicta, by 90 bishops at a council under Donatus, bp. of Carthage (Cypr. Ep.59, xiii.; 10), and apparently under the Roman bishopric of Fabian (a.d.240, Morcelli). Apparently the council was held at Lambaesis, and afterwards Donatus and Fabian issued letters condemnatory of Privatus and his opinions.

In 250 Privatus visited Rome, and Cyprian, apprehensive of his influence, warned the clergy against him. They replied (Ep. xxxvi.4) that they had already detected him in an attempt to obtain litterae (communicatoriae) from them fraudulently.

He presented himself (vetus haereticus) and desired to be heard on behalf of the party who took the lax view as to the lapsi, at the 2nd council Id. Mai., 252, and, on being rejected, consecrated Fortunatus pseudo-bishop (Ep. lix.13), assisted by a pseudo-bishop, Felix, of his own consecration, and by Jovinus and Maximus, and a lapsed bishop, Repostus Suturnicensis.

[E.W.B.]

Probus, Sextus Anicius Petronius
Probus (4), Sextus Anicius Petronius (Corp. Inscrip. vi. i, n.1752), a member of one of the most illustrious families in Rome, consul with Gratian in a.d.371, and four times pretorian prefect of Italy, Illyricum, the Gauls, and Africa. He had also been proconsul in Africa in 358 (Cod. Theod. xi.36; xiii.). He was appointed pretorian prefect of Italy and Illyricum in 368 (Ammian. xxvii.1). During his tenure of office he chose St. Ambrose, then a young advocate, as one of his council, and afterwards appointed him governor of Liguria and Aemilia with the rank of consular. On this occasion Probus uttered the words, afterwards considered prophetic, |Go, act not as a judge but as a bishop|; and many years later he sent one of his servants, who was possessed with a devil, to be healed by him (Paulinus, Vita Ambr.5, 8, 21, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xiv.28, 29, 34). Probus continued prefect of Italy until Valentinian died in 374. He appears as pretorian prefect of Italy in 380, and as pretorian prefect in 383-384 (Cod. Theod. vi.28 ii.; xi.13 i.; vi.30 vi.). After the murder of Gratian in 383 he acted as regent to Valentinian II. in Italy, accompanying him and his mother Justina in their flight to Thessalonica on the invasion of Maximus in 387 (Socr. H. E. v.11; Soz. H. E. vii.13). He died before the end of 394 (Claudian. in Prob. et Ol. Cons.31) at the age of nearly 60, after having received baptism (Corp Inscrip. vi.1, p.389). It may be owing to his Christianity that Ammianus (xxvii.11) paints him in such unfavourable colours, a remarkable contrast to the glowing panegyric of Claudian and Ausonius (Ep.16). All agree as to his immense wealth and boundless liberality. His wife Anicia Faltonia Proba belonged to the Anician house, and their sons Probinus and Olybrius had the unique honour of being consuls together in 395. Six letters of Symmachus, who was his intimate friend (Epp. i.56-61), are addressed to him (Tillem. Emp. v.42, 72).

[F.D.]

Prochorus, a deacon
Prochorus (Prochoros), the name of one of the seven deacons in Acts vi.5. Later tradition makes him one of the 70 disciples, and afterwards bp. of Nicomedia in Bithynia (cf. the list of the 70 in the so-called Dorotheus).

Under his name has been preserved an apocryphal History of the Apostle John, first published in the Greek text by Michael Neander in the appendix to the 3rd ed. of his Graeco-Latin version of Luther's Short Catechism, along with a Latin trans. by Sebastian Castalio (Catechesis Martini Lutheri parva graeco-latina postremum recognita, Basileae, 1567, pp.526-663).

The narrative begins with the parting of the apostles and St. John's mission into Asia. In punishment for a first refusal to go by sea John suffers shipwreck, but arrives safely at Ephesus, accompanied by Prochoros his disciple. Here he takes service in a public bath; restores to life the owner's son, who has been slain by a demon, destroys the image of Diana (Artemis) and expels the demon which had harboured there; is banished himself, but soon returns to be again exiled to Patmos by command of the emperor. On the voyage thither he restores a drowned man to life, stills a tempest, and heals a sick guardsman. The greater part of the subsequent narrative is occupied with the wondrous deeds of the apostle in his banishment, his victorious encounters with demons and sorcerers, his refutation of a learned Jew in a public dispute, numerous miracles of healing and raising from the dead, and triumphant issues out of every conflict in which his persecuting enemies involve him. After a residence in Patmos of 15 years he has converted almost the whole island. Receiving permission to return to Ephesus, he first retires to a solitary place in the island (katapausis) and there dictates his gospel to Prochoros, and when finished leaves it behind as a memorial of his work in Patmos. He then goes by ship to Ephesus, and dwells there in the house of Domnus, whom he had formerly in his youth raised to life. After residing 26 years more at Ephesus he buries himself alive. Prochoros and six other disciples dig his grave, and when he has laid himself in it, cover him with earth. On the grave being subsequently reopened, the apostle has disappeared.

This writing of the alleged Prochoros is, in its main contents at least, in no way a recension of the old Gnostic Acts of John, but the independent work of some Catholic author. Though the writer makes some use of the Gnostic Acts, he can hardly have known them in their original text. Its purpose seems to be to supplement the Ephesian histories of the apostle which already existed in a Catholic recession by a detailed account of his deeds and adventures in Patmos. The author can have had no local interest in its composition. His notions of the situation, size, and general characteristics of the island, which he certainly never saw, are most extraordinary. In constructing his narrative he has made only partial use of older materials. By far the most of these narrations of the pretended Prochoros are free inventions of his own. None betray any leaning towards Gnosticism. The author shews no tendency to ascetic views except where he draws from older sources; and even in discourses attributed to the apostle the theological element is quite subordinate. He takes no notice of the Apocalypse, and, in opposition to the older tradition, places the composition of the gospel in Patmos. The account given of this is certainly not derived from the Gnostic Periodoi.

The date of composition cannot be later than the middle of 5th cent., since it is made use of, not only in the Chronicon Paschale (pp.761, 470, ed. Bonn; cf. Zahn, pp.162 sqq.), but also in the accounts of the apostles attributed to Dorotheus, Hippolytus, and others. The terminus a quo is the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th cent., since, from that time onwards and not before, Catholic writers appear to have known the Gnostic histories of the apostles. With this, moreover; agrees the fact that the author can assume a universal diffusion of Christianity in Ephesus and the Aegean Archipelago. It is more difficult to determine the place of composition. The author is certainly not a native of Asia Minor, but rather perhaps of Antioch, or the coast region of Syria and Palestine. He is better acquainted with the topography of those parts than with the neighbourhood of Ephesus. Of his personal circumstances we can only say that he certainly was not a monk; perhaps he was a married cleric, possibly a layman. Cf. Zahn, Acta Joannis (Erlangen, 1880); Lipsius, Die Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten, i.355-408.

[R.A.L.]

Proclus, a Montanist Teacher
Proclus (1) (Proculus), a Montanist teacher, and probably the introducer of Montanism into Rome at the very beginning of the 3rd cent. For the account given by Tertullian (adv. Prax.1) of the apparently favourable reception the new prophesying at first met with at Rome, and its subsequent rejection, see MONTANISM. Proclus was publicly opposed by Caius, commonly called a Roman presbyter, and the record of their disputation, though now lost, was read by Eusebius, and is mentioned by several other writers. [[505]CAIUS.] Pseudo-Tertullian states (Haer.21) that the Montanists were divided into two sections by the Patripassian controversy, Proclus leading the section whose doctrine on that subject agreed with that of the church, and Aeschines the opposite section. This schism among the Montanists is mentioned also by Hippolytus (Ref. viii.19).

We can scarcely be wrong in identifying Proclus the Montanist with the Proculus whom Tertullian in his tract against the Valentinians (c.5) calls |Proculus noster, virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas.| He there refers to him as one who, like Justin Martyr, Miltiades, and Irenaeus, successfully confuted heresy. He is also named as a leader of the Montanists by Pacian (Ep. ad Sympron.), and no doubt it is his name which is disguised as Patroclus in the MSS. of Theodoret (Haer. Fab. iii.2).

[G.S.]

Proclus, St. patriarch of Constantinople
Proclus (2), St., patriarch of Constantinople. The friend and disciple of Chrysostom, he became secretary to Atticus the patriarch, who ordained him deacon and priest. Sisinnius, the successor of Atticus, consecrated him bp. of Cyzicus, but the people there refused to receive him, and he remained at Constantinople. On the death of Sisinnius, the famous NESTORIUS succeeded, and early in 429, on a festival of the Virgin, Proclus preached the celebrated sermon on the Incarnation inserted in the beginning of the Acts of the council of Ephesus. When Maximianus died on Thur. before Easter, 434, Proclus was, by the permission of Theodosius, immediately enthroned by the bishops at Constantinople. His first care was the funeral of his predecessor, and he then sent both to Cyril and John of Antioch the usual synodical letters announcing his appointment, both of whom approved of it. In 436 the bishops of Armenia consulted him upon certain doctrines prevalent in their country and attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, asking for their condemnation. Proclus replied (437) in the celebrated letter known as the Tome of Proclus, which he sent to the Eastern bishops asking them to sign it and to join in condemning the doctrines arraigned by the Armenians. They approved of the letters, but from admiration of Theodore hesitated to condemn the doctrines attributed to him. Proclus replied that while he desired the extracts subjoined to his Tome to be condemned, he had not attributed them to Theodore or any individual, not desiring the condemnation of any person. A rescript from Theodosius procured by Proclus, declaring his wish that all should live in peace and that no imputation should be made against any one who died in communion with the church, appeased the storm. The whole affair shewed conspicuously the moderation and tact of Proclus. In 438 he transported to Constantinople from Comana, and interred with great honour in the church of the Apostles, the remains of his old master St. Chrysostom, and thereby reconciled to the church his adherents who had separated in consequence of his condemnation. In 439, at the request of a deputation from Caesarea in Cappadocia, he selected as their new bishop Thalassius, who was about to be appointed pretorian prefect of the East. In the time of Proclus the Trisagion came into use. The occasion is said to have been a time when violent earthquakes lasted for four months at Constantinople, so that the people were obliged to leave the city and encamp in the fields. Proclus died most probably in July 446. He appears to have been wise, moderate, and conciliatory, desirous, while strictly adhering to orthodoxy himself, to win over those who differed from him by persuasion rather than force.

His works (Migne, Patr. Gk. lxv.651) consist of 20 sermons (some of doubtful authenticity), 5 more pub. by Card. Mai (Spic. Rom. iv. xliii. lxxviii.), of which 3 are preserved only in a Syriac version, the Greek being lost; 7 letters, along with several addressed to him by other persons; and a few fragments of other letters and sermons. Socr. H. E. vii. xxvi., and passim; Theophan. sub an.430; Tillem. Mém. eccl. xiv.704; AA. SS. Act. x.639.

[F.D.]

Procopius Gazaeus, a Christian sophist
Procopius (8) Gazaeus, Christian sophist, temp. Justin and Justinian (518-565). Of his life we know only that he was the preceptor of Choricius the sophist. His fame rests on his Scripture commentaries. These, though diffuse, are but abridgements of the collections he had made (see his Prolog. to the commentary on Gen.); his profession of belief as to the nature of the Triune God, and the importance, authority, and interpretation of Scripture, is very satisfactory. His style is highly polished and concise. He must be distinguished from his contemporary sophist, PROCOPIUS (9) OF CAESAREA. His collected works are pub. by Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxvii. in 3 parts, but his commentaries have also appeared separately. Of more doubtful authenticity and probably belonging to Procopius Caesarensis, though commonly attributed to P. Gazaeus is Panegyricus in Imp. Anastasium (Gk. and Lat.) in Corp. Script. Hist. Byz. (Bonnae, 1829), pp.489 seq. and Migne u.s. pt. iii.; Descriptio Basilicae Sanctae Sophiae (Gk. and Lat.) Migne, ib.; and Menodia in S. Sophiam terraemotu collapsum (Gk. and Lat.) in Migne, ib. pt. ii. (Cellier, Aut. Sacr. xi.176 seq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.504; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vi.258; vii.535; viii.375; ix.447; L. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza, Freiburg i/Br.1897.)

[J.G.]

Procopius of Caesarea
Procopius (9) of Caesarea, Byzantine historian. Born at Caesarea in Palestine, he went during the reign of Anastasius to Constantinople, where he taught rhetoric and pleaded in the courts.

We meet him first c.527, when he was sent by Justinian to accompany Belisarius, as secretary and privy councillor, in his expeditions against the Persians. In 533 he was with him in Africa, warring against the Vandals, and, after their subjection, was left behind to reduce the conquered into order. A mutiny of the soldiers drove him in 536 to Sicily, which Belisarius was then engaged in reducing, and he accompanied the latter into Italy in his campaign against the Goths. In 542 Procopius returned to Constantinople, where he seems to have remained to the end of his life, devoting himself mainly to writing a history of the expeditions, in which he had borne no unimportant part.

It is a question whether he was a Christian or a heathen. He speaks of the church of St. Sophia at Constantinople as the temple of the great Christ of God (to hieron tou megalou Christou tou Theou, de Bell. Vandal. i.6). He describes Jesus as the Son of God Who went about clothed with a human body, shewing that He was the Son of God both by His sinless life and His superhuman deeds (de Bell. Pers. ii.12). Christians are in his eyes those who have right opinions respecting God (de Bell. Vandal. i.21). The Virgin Mary is often mentioned under the name theotokos (e.g. de Aedif. v.7). The Hellenic religion is alluded to as impiety (ib. vi.4). On the other hand, he often alludes alike to Christians and heretics as if he occupied a calm position superior to them both (de Bell. Pers. i.18). The controversies of the church had done much to alienate him from doctrinal Christianity; and, though he does speak at times as if he had embraced some of its distinct tenets, it is hardly possible to think that he had done so in the sense of regarding them as an express revelation of divine truth to man.

His works consist of a history of the Persian war from 408 to 549; a history of the war with the Vandals in Africa from 395 to 545; a history of the Gothic wars in Italy from 487 to 574; a work de Aedificiis Justiniani Imp.; and a work entitled Anecdota or a secret history of Justinian, the empress Theodora, Belisarius, his wife Antonina, and others of the court. This last, intended for publication only after the author's death, is described by Cave in the strongest terms of reprobation, as written to shew the court of Justinian as no better than a diabolorum lerna, and as exhibiting such audacity, falsehood, calumny, and charges of unheard-of crimes, that it has been doubted whether Procopius really wrote it. (See Schröckh, vol. xvi. p.168, etc.)

As to the value of the three works first mentioned there can be no doubt. Procopius had enjoyed most favourable opportunities of acquainting himself with the events he describes. Gibbon draws largely on the |sober testimony of Procopius,| and also describes him as |the gravest historian of the times| (c. xxxviii.).

De Aedificiis is throughout a tribute to the glory of Justinian. It is devoted to a description of the great buildings, temples, forts, castles, bridges, monasteries, and structures of every description erected by Justinian in all the different parts of the Roman empire.

The works of Procopius may be consulted with advantage for information on such points as the condition of the nations and tribes of the Abasgi, Bruchi, Alani, Franks, Goths, Huns, Persians, Vandals; the wars of Belisarius, his character and life; geographical notices of towns, rivers, seas, mountains, and countries over a widespread area; the names of the bishops, and the ecclesiastical occurrences of his time, etc. The best ed. is that of Dindorf in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byz., with the Latin trans. of Maltritus.

[W.M.]

Proculus, Montanist
Proculus, Montanist. [[508]PROCLUS.]

Proculus, bp. of Marseilles
Proculus (7), bp. of Marseilles, at the council of Aquileia, a.d.381, where he joined in condemning the errors of Palladius and Secundinianus (Ambros. Ep. viii. pp.916 (786), 935 (802), 939 (805), ed. Migne). At the council of Turin, a.d.399, or more probably 401, though Fleury places it as late as 404, Proculus claimed the primacy as metropolitan over the churches not only of his own province, but also of Nabonensis Secunda. The council, while ruling that the bishop of the civil metropolis of a province should be regarded as the metropolitan, sanctioned the claim of Proculus for his own life, in consideration of his age and high reputation (Bruns, Conc. ii.114; Baron. vol. v.397, 43; Fleury, H. E. xxi.52). His high character is acknowledged by St. Jerome in his letter to Rusticus, a.d.411 (Ep.125, 20); but pope Zosimus seems to have had a strong feeling against him, and in 417 decreed that Patroclus, bp. of Arles from 412, was entitled to rank as metropolitan. Whether our Proculus was the Gallic bp. of that name to whom St. Augustine wrote in 427 is not quite clear. Tillem. vol. x. pp.698, 699; Ceillier, vii. pp.528-537.

[H.W.P.]

Prodicus, a Gnostic teacher
Prodicus, a Gnostic teacher of 2nd cent., concerning whom trustworthy information is very scanty. He is not mentioned by the principal writers on heresies, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, or Philaster. Tertullian twice mentions him (Scorpiace 15; adv. Prax.3), both times in company with Valentinus, in such a way as to suggest that he regarded the two heretics as of the same school. In the first passage Prodicus and Valentinus are spoken of as teaching that Christ did not wish His disciples to confess Him publicly if that would expose their lives to danger; in the second they are described as introducing in opposition to the Creator, not a single rival god like Marcion, but a multiplicity of gods. Our only other trustworthy information about Prodicus is in three notices by Clement of Alexandria. The first (Strom. i.15, p.359) states that those who followed the heresy of Prodicus boasted of possessing secret books of Zoroaster. Apparently in Clement's time Prodicus was dead, but a sect founded by him still in existence. Strom.. vii.7, p.854 states that his followers objected to the practice of prayer. Clement does not state their grounds of objection. The most characteristic notice of the sect is (ib. iii.4, p.525) that his followers who claim to be Gnostics (falsely so called) declare that they are by nature children of the first god, and privileged by their noble birth to live as they choose, being |lords of the Sabbath,| and |as king's children above the law|; and living |as they chose| meant living very licentiously.

For further information we have to come down to the 5th cent. to Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i.6), who seems to have no knowledge of Prodicus except from Clement, whom he quotes, mixing up, however, some of the things which Clement says about other licentious Gnostic sects; e.g. it seems an unauthorized combination of Theodoret's to connect Prodicus with Carpocrates, and we may reject as equally arbitrary Theodoret's assertion that he founded the sect of the Adamites, of which Theodoret would have read in Epiphanius (Haer.52).

[G.S.]

Prosper, St., a native of Aquitaine
Prosper (4), St., a native of Aquitaine, not certainly known to have been in holy orders; probably born c.403. About 426-429 he removed to Marseilles, where he lived as a monk until 440. Some time between 420 and 427 John Cassian put forth in his Collationes a doctrine concerning grace and free will contrary to that taught by St. Augustine. This doctrine was taken up warmly by many monks at Marseilles, and both Prosper and Hilary (as to whom see further on), afraid lest a doctrine they believed erroneous should become prevalent among the monks, were thinking of writing to Augustine to request him to explain some of his statements. In the meantime came out Augustine's Correptione et Gratia, by which Prosper hoped all doubts would be settled. But those who thought differently only became more obstinate in their opposition. Although Prosper had never seen Augustine, he had written to him by Leontius, a deacon, and received a reply, but neither letter nor reply has survived. He now wrote again to him in 428, as also did Hilary, and his reply to these letters is contained in the consecutive treatises de Praedestinatione Sanctorum and de Dono Perseverantiae, written either in 428 or 429 (see Aug. Epp.225, 226; and Opp. vol. x. pp.947-1034, ed. Migne). [[509]AUGUSTINE.] Augustine died a.d.430, and the opponents of his doctrine in Gaul professing willingness to abide by the decision of the Roman pontiff, Hilary and Prosper went to Rome and brought back a letter from Celestine I. to the Gallic bishops, Venerius of Marseilles, Marinus, Leontius of Fréjus, Auxentius of Nice, Auxonius of Viviers, and Arcadius of Venice. In this he speaks of Hilary and Prosper as men |quorum circa Deum nostrum solicitudo laudanda est,| and reproved, but without effect, the indiscretion and ill-informed zeal of their opponents (Coelest. Ep. xxi.1, 2). To this letter are subjoined in some editions a series of so-called decisions of the apostolic see concerning grace and free will, which, however, cannot be regarded as authentic. When Leo I. returned from his mission into Gaul, a.d.440, to be made pope, he persuaded Prosper to accompany him to Rome, and employed him as his secretary (notarius). Photius says that he confuted the Pelagians at Rome in the time of Leo, and a MS. of the monastery of Corbey adds, but without mention of authority, that he was sent by him on a similar errand into Campania to oppose Julian of Eclanum. Gennadius says that he was the real author of the epistle of Leo against Eutyches concerning the incarnation of Christ. The chronicle of Marcellinus shews him alive in 463. Fulgentius (ad. Mon. i. c.30) speaks of him as |eruditus et Sanctus|; Photius (Biblioth.54) as one who was truly a man of God, but with no other title than Prospeiros tis, who confuted the Pelagians in the time of Leo. Gennadius, no friend to him, speaks of him (de Scr. Ecc.84) as |sermone scholasticus et assertionibus nervosus| (Butler, Lives of Saints, June 25; Ceillier, vol. x. p.278). The letter of Prosper to Augustine describes the view taken at Marseilles and elsewhere concerning predestination. Those who adopted it, he says, believe that mankind has sinned in Adam, and that without God's grace there can be no salvation for any one. God offers salvation to all, so that they who attain faith and receive baptism are in the way of being saved. But before the creation of the world God foreknew who would believe and be saved, and predestined them to His kingdom, being called by grace and worthy of being chosen and of going out of life sound in faith. No man, therefore, need despair of salvation, but this selection on God's part makes human exertion needless either for recovery from sin or for progress in holiness. Thus a doctrine of fatal necessity is introduced. They also think that men can by their own merit, by praying, beseeching, knocking, attain that state of grace in which we are born anew unto Christ. Infants dying without baptism will be saved or not according as God foreknows what their conduct would have been if they had grown up. Christ died for the whole race of mankind, but some miss this salvation because they are known beforehand to have no inclination to receive it. They also deny that the merits of saints proceed from divine grace, and that the number of the elect can be either increased or diminished, and they assert that the only way in which a man is called either to repentance or to progress in holiness is by the exercise of his own free will. They thus place obedience before grace, and the first step towards salvation in him who is to be saved, not in Him Who saves. Great difficulties arise, Prosper says, in his attempts to convince the holders of these opinions of their errors, from his own want of ability and from the great and acknowledged sanctity of their lives, a remark which he probably intends especially of Cassian; and also from the elevation of some of them to the highest office in the church. He therefore begs Augustine to explain (a) how Christian faith can escape division through these disputes; (b) how free will can be independent of prevenient grace; (c) whether God's foreknowledge is absolute and complete; (d) whether foreknowledge depends in any way on human purpose, and whether there can be any good which does not proceed from God; (e) how those who despair of their own election can escape carelessness of life. He asks him to explain all this in a way consistent with God's previous ordinance of vessels of honour and dishonour. One of these men, Hilary, bp. of Arles, is known to Augustine as an admirer of his doctrine and as wishing to compare his own view with his by writing to him, but whether he will do so or not Prosper does not know (Aug. Ep.225).

The letter of Prosper was accompanied or very soon followed by one on the same subject by Hilary, concerning whom three opinions have been held: (1) That he was the bp. of Arles mentioned by Prosper; (2) that he was a lay monk of Gaul; (3) that he was the Hilary who wrote to Augustine from Syracuse, a.d.414. That he was a lay monk appears tolerably clear. Augustine replied in the de Praed. and de Don. Persev., which are really consecutive volumes of one work.

About the same time Prosper wrote an answer on the same subject to a friend named Ruffinus or Rufinus, about whom nothing is known except that Prosper addresses him as Sanctitas tua, perhaps implying a member of a religious community. He wrote partly to vindicate himself from unfavourable reports as to his doctrine, partly to direct his attention to the writings of Augustine and clear them from the accusation of denying free will and setting up Manichean doctrine. The line of argument against Pelagian or semi-Pelagian views is much the same as in the letter to Augustine, but he also mentions the cases of Cornelius and Lydia as instances of persons who had been led by God's grace into the way of eternal life, and as not by any means favouring the Pelagian theory. Why all men are not saved is a mystery of God's, not explicable by, human understanding, and of which we may be thankful to be ignorant (Ep. ad Rufin.; for a long account of which see Ceillier, vol. x.279-284).

Prosper also wrote or compiled several works in prose and verse.

I. VERSE. -- The longest is the poem de Ingratis, a term by which he describes those who teach erroneous doctrine about grace, viz. the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. It is explained clearly in v.685:

|Vos soli Ingrati, quos urit gratia, cujus

Omne opus arbitrio vultis consistere vestro.|

It consists of 1002 lines with a short elegiac preface, and is divided into four parts. A theological treatise in verse rather than a poem, it describes accurately the history of the Pelagian doctrine, whose author it calls |coluber Britannus,| and mentions the treatment his opinions met at Rome, in the Eastern church and in Africa through the influence mainly of Augustine, |the light of the age.| The manner in which the Roman church is spoken of is worthy of notice, v.40:

| . . . pestem subeuntum prima recidit

Sedes Roma Petri, quae pastoralis honoris

Facta caput mundo, quidquid non possidet armis

Religione tenet.'

Though without any claim to high rank as poetry, and exhibiting, though in a less degree than does Paulinus, the degenerate standard of its age in language and versification, it treats its subject with well-sustained vigour and generally with clearness, and now and then expresses theological truths, though perhaps with severity, yet with remarkable force and terseness. Ampère condemns what he considers its violence, its hard, melancholy, and desponding tone, amounting sometimes |to a pale reflection of hell.| He also points out a similarity in its sentiment to some works of Pascal and the Port-Royalists, which he contrasts unfavourably with the tone of Bossuet in his essay on the fear of God (Hist. litt. de France, vol. ii. c.16, pp.38-58).

There are other poems of an epigrammatic kind, generally regarded as genuine works of Prosper, though doubted by some editors. Two of them, doubted by Garnier, are addressed to a maligner (obtrectatorem) of St. Augustine. Another, entitled Conjugis ad Uxorem, is in some edd. of Paulinus's works, but is quoted by Bede in his treatise de Arte Metrica as the work of Prosper Tiro. It consists of 16 lines of Anacreontic metre, followed by 98 elegiac lines, describing the glory of the Christian life and having some passages of considerable force and beauty both of thought and expression. It was evidently composed during the confusion and disaster caused by the barbarian invasions, hence c.407, but there is no evidence to shew that Prosper of Aquitaine was ever married, and if not besides the improbability arising from its date, the poem is not likely to be his composition.

II. PROSE. -- (1) Responsiones pro Augustino ad Capitula Gallorum. A statement under 15 heads of the objections of the Gallic bishops to the doctrines of St. Augustine on Predestination, with answers to each. (2) Responsiones ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum. A similar work in 16 chapters. The objections express, in a manner harsh, revolting, and unfair, the possible results of predestinarian doctrine carried to its extreme point. (3) Responsiones ad Excerpta Genuensium. -- Some clergymen of Genoa had misunderstood various passages from the two treatises of St. Augustine, de Praedestinatione Sanctorum, and de Dono Perseverantiae, and to them Prosper addresses a courteous explanation, quoting passages cited by them and adding his own replies, gathered in some cases from the words of Augustine, and in one case pointing out an egregious blunder made by them in quoting as his opinion words intended to express an opponent's objection. (4) Contra Collatorem. John Cassian had written a book entitled Spiritual Conferences (Collationes), 17 in number, in the 13th of which, entitled de Protectione Dei, he condemned severely Augustine's doctrine on predestination. This is defended by Prosper partly by arguments drawn from Scripture and the nature of the case, and partly by the authority of the churches of Rome, the East, and Africa. He warns his adversary of his near approach to the precipices of Pelagianism, and expresses the hope that his doctrine may be condemned by the present pontiff Sixtus (432-440), as it had been by those before him. The book must have been published between those dates. (5) An Exposition of Pss. c. to cl., (omitting cvii. [cviii.]), taken substantially and often verbally, though much abridged, from St. Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos; not a mere servile curtailment, but a fair and judicious representation, executed with great skill, of the Augustinian work, together with some additions of Prospers own, probably published c.435. (6) Book of Sentences taken from the Works of St. Augustine, 392 in number, put together, probably, originally as a manual for his own use. They are very short, and are a sort of compendious index to the opinions of St. Augustine. Other works are assigned to Prosper, but on insufficient authority.

(6 a) The Chronicle, probably the best known of the works of Prosper, is attributed to him without hesitation by Cassiodorus, Gennadius of Marseilles, Victorius, and Isidore, though Pithou and Garnier doubted it. It extends from the earliest age to the capture of Rome by the Vandals, a.d.455, and consists of three parts: (1) To a.d.326, founded, as it states, on that of Eusebius, and though much abridged, treating the subject with some independence. (2) From 326 to 378, which uses similarly Jerome's continuation of Eusebius, with both additions and omissions. (3) From 378 to 455. As might be expected, predominance is given to ecclesiastical events, especially such as concern the rise and fall of heretical doctrines. The Chronicle arose out of an endeavour to fix the date of Easter, for which purpose Prosper constructed a Paschal cycle now lost.

(b) Chronicle of Tiro Prosper. Besides the Chronicle just described, another much shorter and relating to the latest period only, bearing the name of Prosper, was edited by Pierre Pithou in 1588 from MSS. in the library of the monastery of St. Victor at Paris. It is difficult to believe that the two Chronicles could be by the same writer, or if they were, to understand why he published both, as must have been the case, about the same timer It is much more probable that Prosper of Aquitaine and Tiro Prosper, despite an apparently mistaken statement of Bede, were different persons.

The best ed. of Prosper's collected works, by Desprez and Desessarts (Paris, 1711), contains all the works rightly attributed to Prosper, together with others not belonging to him, and various pieces relating to the semi-Pelagian controversy. It is revised and reprinted in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. li. See L. Valentin, St. Prosper d'Aquitaine (Paris, 1900).

[H.W.P.]

Proterius, St., patriarch of Alexandria
Proterius, St., patriarch of Alexandria, was presbyter and church-steward under Dioscorus, and left in charge of the church when Dioscorus went to the council of Chalcedon. After Dioscorus was deposed by that council, the emperor Marcian ordered a new election to the see. The suffragan bishops, except 13 detained at Constantinople by a resolution of the council (Chalced. c.30), were assembled in synod; and the chief laymen of Alexandria came as usual to express their mind and assent to the prelate's choice (cf. Liberat. Breviar. c.14, and Evagr. ii.5). There was great difficulty in reaching a conclusion; for the majority of the Alexandrian church people were profoundly aggrieved by the action of the council. In their eyes Dioscorus was still their rightful |pope,| the representative of Cyril and of Athanasius. Ultimately, however, opposition to the imperial mandate was felt impracticable. It was resolved to elect, and then all favoured Proterius, who was consecrated and enthroned (a.d.452); but the passions of the Dioscorian and
anti-Dioscorian parties broke .out at once into tumultuous dissension, which Evagrius likens to the surging of the sea. Proterius sending Leo the usual announcement of his elevation, Leo asked some definite assurance of his orthodoxy (Leo, Ep.113, in Mar.453), and received a letter which he regarded as |fully satisfactory,| shewing Proterius to be a |sincere assertor of the Catholic dogma,| inasmuch as he had cordially accepted the Tome (Epp.127, 130). Thereupon (Mar.454) he wrote again to Proterius, advising him to clear himself from all suspicion of Nestorianizing, by reading to his people certain passages from approved Fathers, and then shewing that the Tome did but hand on their tradition and guard the truth from perversions on either side. Leo took care, in thus addressing the |successor of St. Mark,| to dwell on that evangelist's relation to St. Peter as of a disciple to a teacher; and he bespeaks the support of the Alexandrian see in this resistance to the unprincipled ambition of Constantinople, which in the 28th canon, so called, of Chalcedon had injured the |dignity| of the other great bishoprics (Ep.129). Another question prolonged the correspondence. The Nicene Fathers were believed to have commissioned the Alexandrian bishops to ascertain and signify the right time for each coming Easter. Leo had consulted Cyril as to the Easter of 444; and he now, in 454 applied to Proterius, through the emperor, for his opinion as to the Easter of 455, which the Alexandrian Paschal table appeared to him to place too late (Epp.121, 127). Proterius replied to Leo at some length (Ep.133, Apr.454) that Egypt and the East would keep Apr.24 as Easter Day, and expressed his belief that all Christians everywhere would |observe one faith, one baptism, and one most sacred paschal solemnity.|

Proterius had troubles with his own clergy. Not long after the council a priest named Timotheus and a deacon named Peter (nicknamed Mongus) refused to communicate with him, because in his diptychs he ignored Dioscorus and commemorated the council of Chalcedon. He summoned them to return to duty; they refused, and he pronounced in synod their deposition (Liberat. c.15; Brevic. Hist. Eutych. or Gesta in causa Acacii, in Mansi, vii.1062). Four or five bishops and a few monks appear to have actively supported them, and to have been included in their condemnation and in the imperial sentence of exile which followed (Ep. Aegypt. Episc. ad Leonem Aug. in Mansi, vii.525). The monks in Egypt, as elsewhere, were generally attached to the Monophysite position, which they erroneously identified with the Cyrilline. They took for granted that the late council had been practically striking at Cyril through Dioscorus; and that Christ's single personality was at stake. Thus, besides those monks who had overtly taken part with Timotheus and Peter, others apparently had suspended communion with the archbishop; and Marcian had addressed them in gentle and persuasive terms, assuring them that the doctrine of |one Christ,| symbolized by the term Theotokos, had been held sacrosanct at Chalcedon, and exhorting them therefore to join with the Catholic church of the orthodox, which was one (Mansi; vii.481). But the schism, once begun, was not thus to be abated; the zealous seceders raised a cry, which has practically never died out, that the Egyptian adherents of the council of Chalcedon were a mere state-made church, upheld by the court against the convictions of the faithful. To this day the poor remnant of orthodoxy in Egypt bears a name which is a stigma, Melchites or |adherents of the king.| (Cf. Renaudot, Hist. Patr. Alex. p.119; Neale, Hist. Patr. Alex. ii.7. They both add that the orthodox accepted the term.) Even after Dioscorus died in exile Proterius was ignored and disclaimed, and knew that he was the object of a hatred that was biding its time, and |during the greater part of his pontificate,| as Liberatus tells us, depended for safety on a military guard. At last, in Jan.457, Marcian died, and the Monophysites thought they saw their opportunity. Some malcontent Egyptian bishops renewed their outcry against the council (Eulogius, in Phot. Bibl.130, p.283, ed. Bekk.); and Timotheus, returning to Alexandria, began those intrigues which won him his title of |the Cat.| [[510]TIMOTHEUS AELURUS.] The |dux| Dionysius being absent in Upper Egypt, Timotheus found it the easier to gather a disorderly following and obtain irregular consecration. Dionysius, returning, expelled Timotheus; and the latter's partisans in revenge rushed to the house of Proterius, and after besetting him for some time in the adjacent church of Quirinus, ran him through with a sword in its baptistery, and he died under many wounds with six of his clerics. His corpse was dragged by a cord across the central place called Tetrapylon, and then through nearly the whole city, with hideous cries, |Look at Proterius!| Beaten as if it could still suffer, torn limb from limb, and finally burnt, its ashes were |scattered to the winds.| The day was Easter Day, Mar.31, 457. See also Evagr. ii.8; Le Quien, ii.412; Neale, Hist. Alex. ii.12.

[W.B.]

Prudentius, Marcus (?) Aurelius Clemens
Prudentius, Marcus (?) Aurelius Clemens, the chief Christian poet of early times, born a.d.348 (Praef.24, cf. Apotheosis, 449), somewhere in the N. of Spain, near the Pyrenees (Peristeph. vi.146). His name, education, and career imply that he was of good family; he was educated in rhetoric and law, and his poems shew an exact knowledge of the Latin classical poets, especially Virgil, Ovid, Horace, and Juvenal; he seems to have known little Greek and no Hebrew. He speaks of his early life as stained with much sinfulness, but must have been held in high respect, for after practising as an advocate, he twice held an important civil office, and was at last raised to some high position at the emperor's court (cf. Kayser, p.254 n.; Brockhaus, p.16 n.; Faguet, p.17). Late in life he received some deep religious impression, in consequence of which he gave up public life. Some expressions of his seem to imply that he joined a religious society (Cath. ii.45; iii.56; cf. Psych.551-573). He has no longer any money to relieve the poor; the only offering he can make to God is his poetry (Epil.10). To this and to prayer he devoted his life, seeking to spread among the educated classes a correct knowledge of Christianity, or, like a |Christian Pindar,| to sing the triumphs of the martyrs on their festal days and so win them greater honour. At some period of great anxiety to himself he visited Rome; as he passed Imola he poured out his soul in prayer before the picture of St. Cassian in the church (Perist. x.103, 104). At Rome his anxiety was increased by illness; and he implored the intercession of St. Hippolytus (xi.127). His prayer was answered. At Rome he was deeply impressed with the memorials of the martyrs in the catacombs and churches (xi.) and composed his poem on the deaths of SS. Peter and Paul (xii.). There he probably became acquainted with the poems of pope Damasus, which influenced some of his own. Returning to Spain, he wrote his poems on St. Cassian (ix.) and St. Hippolytus, requesting his bishop to introduce the observance of the latter saint's festival into Spain (xi.) In 403 or 404 he wrote the second book contra Symmachum; and in 405 published an edition of his poems, with a preface shewing that all his extant works, except the Dittochaeon and perhaps the Psychomachia, were then written. Of his later life and death nothing is known.

His character, judging from his writings, was very lovable. He was a loyal Roman, proud of the empire, seeing in its past conquests and capacity for government a preparation for the kingdom of Christ, and looking for greater conquests under the banner of the cross (Perist. ii.1-35, 413-484, x. passim; c. Symm. i.415-505, ii.577-771). He has a great fondness for art, wishing to keep even pagan statues if regarded only as ornaments (c. Symm. i.505). He had an intellectual horror of heresy, though with a personal tenderness for heretics (ib. ii. Prel.). He was loyal to all church customs and ordinances, and had a strong appreciation of spiritual truth; see his lofty conception of the Nature of God (Cath. iv.7-15; Apoth.84-90; Ham.27 seq.; c. Symm. i.325; Perist. x.310), of the True Temple (Cath. iv.16-21; c. Symm. ii.249; Apoth.516), the True Worship (Perist. x.341), the True Nobility of Birth (ib.123), the True Riches (ib. ii.203), the True Fast (Cath. vi.201-220), the True Reward (c. Symm. ii.750). He shews a pious tenderness of spirit (cf. Apoth.393), kissing the sacred books (ib.598) and the altar (Perist. ix.100), and a deep personal humility which does not venture to contend with Symmachus (i.609); which offers his verses to Christ, though they are but the |earthen vessel| (Epil.29) of a |rustic poet| (Perist. ii.574, x.1); which has no merit in itself, but pleads for the intercession of the saints that he may be transferred from Christ's left hand to His right on the judgment day (ib. ii.574, vi.162, x.1136), content if he be saved from the fires of hell and gently purified for the lowest place among the saved (Ham.931). (Authorities -- his own works, especially the Preface, and Gennadius, de Vir. Ill. c.13).

Works. -- His extant works are (a) lyrical, (b) apologetic or didactic, (c) allegorical; their most remarkable characteristic being their variety. All the poems have a considerable literary value; they are written on the whole in good classical Latin, with many new words needed for church purposes and with a touch of archaic forms and words characteristic of this period. The prosody is fairly correct. The lyrical poems spew great originality in the metres used, and are influenced both in form and phrase by Horace, Ambrose, and Damasus. The hexameter poems are much indebted to Virgil, and in a less degree to Lucretius and Juvencus. All shew great fluency, relieved by dramatic vividness (e.g. Perist. v.; c. Symm. ii.654 sqq.), rhetorical vigour of description (e.g. Apoth.450-503; c. Symm. i.415), considerable power of satire (Apoth.186-206; Ham.246) and humour (Perist. ii.169, 407, ix.69, 82), and much epigrammatic terseness of expression; but he dwells on unpleasant details in the accounts of martyrdoms (e.g. ib. x.901) and of the coarsenesses of heathen mythology (Cath. vii.115 sqq.). They are full of typical adaptations of Bible history (e.g. prefaces to Ham., Psych., and i. ii. Symm.). In this way, and in the substance of their arguments, they have a theological value, as shewing the tone of thought common at the time. Their lack of originality of thought makes them even more valuable for this purpose. (For the substance of the theology v. Brockhaus, c. vii.) But perhaps their historical value is the greatest. They give considerable information about heathen antiquities, e.g. the kinds of torture in use (Perist. i.42), methods of writing (ib. ix.23), the corn supplies of Rome (c. Symm. ii.920), the gladiatorial shows (ib. i.384, ii.1909), the religious rites (ib. i. ii. passim; Perist. x.), and still more about Christian antiquities: the luxury and avarice of the times (Ham.246; Apoth.183, 210, 450), the position of deacons and archdeacons at Rome (Perist. ii.37, v.29), the times and details of fasting (Cath. iii.57, vii. viii.9), the use of anointing (ib. vi.125, ix.98; Apoth.357 493; Psych.360), the sign of the cross (Cath. vi.129, ix.84; Apoth.493; c. Symm. ii.712), lights in churches, especially on Easter Eve (Cath. v.), funeral rites (ib. x.49), and the veneration for the saints (Perist. passim. esp. i.10-21, ii.530 sqq., x. ad fin., xi. ad in.. xii.). Especially do they illustrate the art of the time. We have mention of the Lateran church (c. Symm. i.586), that of St. Laurence (Perist. xi.216), of buildings over the tombs of SS. Peter and Paul (xii.) and of the catacombs (xi.153) at Rome; of a church at Merida (iii.191), and a baptistery apparently at Calahorra (viii.); of a picture of the martyrdom of St. Cassian in the church at Imola (ix.), of St. Hippolytus in the catacombs (xi.123), and of St. Peter (xii.38). The Dittochaeon consists of titles for pictures, and nearly all the symbols which he uses (the Dove, the Palm, the Good Shepherd, etc.), as well as the Bible scenes illustrating his poems, are found on gems or on the walls of the catacombs, so that he may have derived his use of them from thence (Brockhaus c. ix.).

From the first his poems were held in great honour; they are quoted with high praise by Sidonius Apollinaris, Avitus, Leo, Isidore, Rabanus Maurus, Alcuin, etc. In the middle ages the Psychomachia and the Cathemerinon were special favourites, and the MSS. of them are very numerous. The best eds. of the poems are those of Areval, 1788 (reprinted in Migne, lix., lx.); Chamillard (in the Delphin classics, with useful index), 1687; Obbar, 1845; Dressel, 1860. The Apotheosis is separately printed in Hurter, Patrum Opuscula Selecta, xxxiii. Translations of selected poems were made by F. St. J. Thackeray (1890); a study of the text by E. O. Winstedt in Class. Rev.1903; a metrical study by E. B. Lease (Baltimore, 1895); and an excellent monograph by Brockhaus, A Prudentius ins einer Bedeutung für die Kirche seiner Zeit (Leipz.1872). We give a fuller account of each poem.

A. Lyrical. (a) Cathemerinon (i.e. kathemerinon humnon), described in the Pref.37, 38; a collection of hymns for the hours of the day and for church seasons. Though necessarily too long for public worship, extracts were made at least as early as 9th cent., and are found frequently in the Mozarabic Liturgy (cf. v. vi. vii. ix. x.), and a few in the Roman and Salisbury breviaries; on Tues., Wed., Thurs. at Lauds (i. ii.), Compline at Christmas (ix.), Compline on Good Friday (vi.), Easter Eve (v.), Epiphany, the Holy Innocents, and the Transfiguration (xii.). (Daniel, i.119, and Kayser, Gesch. d. Kirchenhymnen, 275-336.)

(b) Peristephanon (i.e. peri stephanon, de Coronis Martyrum) described in Pref.42; a collection of 14 lyrical poems, all (except viii. which is an inscription for a baptistery) in honour of martyrs. The choice of the martyrs is inspired by circumstances of the poet's life; the details perhaps taken from existing Acta Martyrum. Half are connected with his own native church of Spain (i. ii. (?) iii.-vi. xiii.), the rest are saints whom he found specially honoured at Rome (ii. vii: x. (?) xi. xii.) or on his journey thither (ix.).

B. Apologetic (referred to in Pref.39). (a) Apotheosis = apotheosis, perhaps The Deification of Human Nature in Christ (cf. Pref.8, 9, and 176, 177; c. Symm. ii.268). The writer deals with Patripassian, Sabellian, Ebionite, and Docetic errors on our Lord's Nature.

(b). Hamartigenia = amartigeneia A treatise on the origin of sin; discussed in a polemical argument against Marcion. The poem falls into two parts. (1) 1-639. God is not the creator of Evil. The existence of good and evil does not justify Marcion's theory of two Gods, for unity is essential to our conception of God. (2) 640-931. God permits evil but does not sanction it. The whole object of the Incarnation was to save man from evil (640-669). The cause of evil is man's free will, but this was needed to secure moral goodness and his power of ruling creation. The thought is mainly based on Tertullian, adv. Marcionem. The language shews reminiscences of Vergil, Persius (384), and Juvenal (763). Like the other poems, it is full of O.T. illustrations, mystically applied (Pref.409, 564, 723). The full description of hell and paradise, and also the graphic portraiture of Satan, are especially noteworthy as the earliest in Christian literature, and so probably of great influence upon later art and literature. Both Dante and Milton may indirectly be indebted to them.

(c) Libri c. Symmachum (described in Pref.40, 41). In 384 Symmachus had presented a petition to Valentinian II. for the restitution of the altar of Victory in the senate-house, which had been removed by Gratian, and also of the incomes of the vestal virgins. Through the influence of St. Ambrose (Epp.17, 18) this had been refused. In 392 the altar was restored by Eugenius; in 394 again removed by Theodosius, After his death the heathen party, encouraged by the invasion of the Goths, which they attributed to the neglect of heathenism, again attempted to have it restored by Arcadius and Honorius. Prudentius wrote these books to counteract their influence. The date of bk. ii. is fixed, as after the battle of Pollentia in a.d.403, and before the abolition of the gladiatorial games, a.d.404 (ii.710, 1114). Bk. i. deals generally with the history and character of heathenism (cf. ii.1-3). Bk. ii. also has a preface, with a prayer to Christ to help the poet as He once helped St. Peter on the water. The poet then deals in detail with the arguments of Symmachus. The poem is very interesting and of great historical value for the circumstances of the time and for the details of Roman mythology and religious rites. The prefaces consist of the typical use of Scripture, but there is no scope for it in the body of the books. They are full, however, of a sense of Rome's majesty, of vigorous description, and of high moral scorn. The language recalls Vergil (passim), Ovid, Juvenal, Horace, and Claudian (ii.704). Plato is quoted in i.30. The subject-matter is influenced in parts by Tertullian (i.396) and Minucius Felix (i.48), but mainly by St. Ambrose, whose arguments are at times reproduced almost verbally.

C. Allegorical. -- Psychomachia = Psuchomachia, De Compugnantia Animi (Gennadius) (the Spiritual Combat). The Preface consists of a mystical application of Gen. xiv. As Abraham with his 318 servants freed Lot, was blessed by Melchizedek, then begat Isaac; so the Christian, with the aid of Christ's cross (tie, 318 = the cross (t) of Iesous), frees his soul, wins Christ's blessing, and brings forth good works. The poem opens with a prayer to Christ to shew how the soul is aided in its conflict (1-20), which is then described.

D. The Dittochaeon, dittochaion, (?) dittos, oche, the double food, or double Testament, stands by itself, and can scarcely be called a poem. It comprises 49 sets of 4 verses on scenes from O. and N. T. They are dry and jejune, and chiefly interesting as apparently composed to describe a series of paintings. See Lanfranchi, Aur Prud. Clem. Opp.1896, 1902, 2 vols. (Turin).

[W.L.]

Pseudo-Chrysostomus
Pseudo-Chrysostomus. Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum. -- Among the works which have been ascribed to Chrysostom is a commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel. It is divided into 54 homilies; but this division does not proceed from the author, and (32, 132 ) the work was one intended, not for oral delivery, but to be read by persons from whom the writer was absent. The work is defective, wanting from the middle of the 13th to the end of the 19th chapter and breaking off at the end of the 25th. Hence its title, Opus Imperfectum, in distinction to the-genuine series of Chrysostom's 90 homilies on St. Matthew, which have been preserved complete. It is quoted as Chrysostom's by Nicolas I. (Respons. ad Bulg. Mansi, xv.403) and other popes; and in the middle ages was accepted without doubt as his. In the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas it is largely employed; and Fabricius quotes Dionysius the Carthusian as saying that he would rather have this imperfect work perfect than be lord of all Paris. Yet the author, far from being Chrysostom or any other orthodox divine, was undoubtedly a bitter Arian. Much of its heresy was hidden from many of its readers by the expurgations of successive transcribers and editors, and some parts may have been so deeply tainted with heresy that only, total excision would suffice. Some early critics, indeed, defended the genuineness of the expurgated form, contending that the passages found in some copies, where the doctrine of our Lord's equality with the Father is formally combated, had been but scribblings by an Arian in the margin of an orthodox writer, which through mistake had crept into the text. Some of the heretical passages can be cut out without injury to the context, but there remain many passages of undisputed genuineness in which the author unmistakably defines his position, and reveals himself as a member of a small persecuted sect which condemned the dominant church as heretical, and was in turn denounced as heretical by the state and as such visited with temporal penalties; and he marks the reign of Theodosius as the time when orthodoxy was overwhelmed and when what he calls the heresy of the Homoousians became triumphant (48, 199; 49, 20). It being clear that the author was not a member of the Catholic church, it is unreasonable to doubt the genuineness of the passages where he exhibits his Arianism, e.g. where he explains that our Lord called heretics |spinas et tribulos,| because, foreseeing that heresy would prevail above all others, He called them |tribulos, quasi trinitatis professores et triangulam bajulantes impietatem.| We must therefore regard the expurgation of the passages as probably due to their heterodoxy. It was not only the Arian passages which were expurgated. E.g. where the writer speaks (19, 93) of |offering the sacrifice of bread and wine,| he is made to say |the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood|; and a passage is cut out altogether where he argues that if it be dangerous to transfer to private uses the consecrated vessels |which contain not the Lord's real body, but the mystery of His body,| how much more to profane the vessels of our own body which God has prepared for His dwelling-place.

When the controversial passages had been expurgated, there was nothing to excite orthodox suspicions in our writer's language about our Lord's divinity. The Arians were not Unitarians, their doctrines, on the contrary, being open to the charge of Ditheism. Accordingly our writer uses very high language concerning our Lord, speaks of Him as |our great God and Saviour,| as does also Maximinus, whose doctrine is in accurate accordance with that of the present work. His formula is |Deus genitus de ingenito Deo.| Sometimes it is |unigenitus Deus| (monogenes theos). If in his controversial passages he is eager to argue that the Son, |to Whom all things were delivered by the Father,| can neither be identical with the Father nor equal to Him, he is equally energetic in repelling the doctrine that He was mere man; and the heresy of the Homoousians is not more reprobated than that of Photinus, who, in his recoil from Arian ditheism, completely separated the Saviour's manhood from the one supreme Divinity. The Third Person of the Trinity is comparatively seldom mentioned, but on this head the writer's doctrine is even more distinctly heretical. The Holy Spirit is evidently regarded as a third Being, as much inferior to the Son as the Son is to the Father (34, 146). This is the
representation also of the Ascension of Isaiah, a work quoted in the present treatise.

Naturally a better side of Arianism is exhibited in this work than elsewhere, in the main not controversial but exegetical and practical, written when all court favour had long been lost, and when the sect met from the state with nothing but persecution. How much there was to recommend the book to a religious mind is evident from the fact that it passed so long as Chrysostom's. The work itself makes no claim to such authorship; the writer is evidently addressing persons who knew him, and to whom he had no motive for trying to pass himself off as other than he was. He had also written commentaries on St. Mark (49, 211) and St. Luke (1, 23; 9, 56). Fragments of ancient Arian homilies on St. Luke have been published by Mai (Bib. Nov. Vet. Pat. iii.), but they have no resemblance to this work. Many favourable extracts from this commentary could be given to justify the estimation in which it was so long held: e.g. the whole comment on the text |Seek and ye shall find| (Hom.17). But possibly the book was commended to medieval readers less by its merits than by what most modern readers would count its faults, for, utterly unlike Chrysostom, this writer constantly follows the mystical and allegorical method commonly connected with Alexandria. In this style he shews remarkable ingenuity. E.g. the name Bathsheba, or, as he reads it, Bersabee, he finds in Hebrew denotes |seven wells.| He deduces from Prov. v.15 that |well| denotes |a wife.| Bathsheba was the seventh wife the literal David; but we learn spiritually that Christ is the spouse of seven churches, for so the one church is designated on account of the seven Spirits by which it is sustained, and accordingly both Paul and John wrote to seven churches. This last remark may suggest the writer's acquaintance with the work of which the Muratorian Fragment is a part.

The writer shews a strong preference for the ascetic life. He remarks (24, 135) that when the disciples said |If the case of the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry,| our Lord did not contradict them or say it was good to marry. He holds (1, 24), that conjugal union is bad and in itself a sin; and although on account of God's permission it ceases to be sin, yet it is not righteousness. In the beginning of the world men married sisters -- a sin excusable at the time on account of the fewness of men. Afterwards this was forbidden, but a man was allowed to have more wives than one; then, as population increased, this too was forbidden, but a man was allowed to have one wife; |now that the world has grown old we know what is well-pleasing in God's sight, though on account of incontinent men we dare not say it.| Some hard language concerning women will be found (24, 135). Yet to those who will not take his counsel he gives advice concerning the choosing and ruling of a wife. He regards the apostle's permission of a second marriage as but licence given on account of the hardness of men's hearts, a second marriage in itself being but |honesta fornicatio.| This is quoted as Chrysostom's in the Decretum of Gratian (par.2, caus.31, quaest.1, 9). The writer owns there was more continence in the dominant church than in his own sect, but is not any more disposed therefore to condone that church's heresy. A heretical sect is no more a church than an ape is a man. If you see a man who does not worship God in truth doing what seem to you good works, do not believe your eyes and say he is a man of good life, but believe God, Who says |An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit.| If you call him good you make Christ a liar; you only see the outside, God sees the heart. The works of a man who does not care to believe rightly can spring from no good motive, for it is better to believe rightly than to act rightly. Faith without works is dead, but still it is something; works without faith are nothing at all. The foolish virgins had the lamps of right faith, but not the oil of good works to burn in them; but what avails the oil of good works to Jews or heretics who have no lamps wherein to light it? He will not even own the baptism of heretics as valid.

It has been questioned whether the original language of this commentary were Greek or Latin, but it appears to us that it was certainly Latin. A translator may conceivably, indeed, have modified the language |Jesse Latino sermone refrigerium appellatur| (p.16), or |in graeco non dicit 'beati pauperes' sed 'beati egeni' vel 'beati mendici'| (9, 56). But there are other passages where the argument turns on the use of Latin; e.g. (53, 223) money passing from hand to hand -- |usu ipso multiplicatur, unde dicitur usura ab usu,| or (7, 53) where an explanation is suggested why, at the call of the apostles, Peter and his brother are described as |mittentes retia,| John and his brother |retia componentes,| |quia Petrus praedicavit evangelium et non composuit, sed Marcus ab eo praedicata composuit; Joannes autem et praedicavit evangelium et ipse composuit.| The commentator, however, clearly uses Greek authorities. From such he must have derived his explanation (49, 205) why the commandments are ten -- |secundum mysterium nominis Jesu Christi quod est in litera iota, id est perfectionis indicio| (see also i, 23). He knew no Hebrew, though he lays great stress on the interpretation of Hebrew names, making use for this purpose of a glossary which we cannot identify with that used by any other writer. It must have been from the work of some Oriental writer that he came by the name of Varisuas as that of a heretic (48, 199), for Barjesus seems plainly intended. He does not use Jerome's Vulgate, but a previous translation. Thus (Matt. v.22) he has |sine causa,| which Jerome omits, and he anticipates bp. Butler in his observations as to the uses of anger -- |Justa ira mater est disciplinae, ergo non solum peccant qui cum causa irascuntur sed e contra nisi irati fuerint peccant.| In the Lord's Prayer he has |quotidianum,| not |supersubstantialem.| He has the doxology at the end; in this differing from the usage of Latin versions but agreeing with the Apostolic Constitutions (iii.18), a work he highly valued. In the beatitudes he follows the received text in placing |Blessed are they that mourn| before |Blessed are the meek,| contrary to Jerome and the bulk of the Latin versions. Both here, however, and in the case of the doxology, he agrees with the Codex Brixianus. He reads |neque filius| (Matt. xxiv.36); he distinctly omits Luke xvii.36 (50, 213).

Besides the Scriptures he uses the Shepherd of Hermas (33, 142), but acknowledges that it was not universally received; the Clementine Recognitions (20, 94; 50, 212; 51, 214), the Apostolic Constitutions or Canons as he calls them (13, 74; 53, 221). The first of these passages does not appear in our present text of the Constitutions; the second is from bk. viii., which Krabbe gives good reason for thinking an Arian addition to the previously known work. In the latter half of the 4th cent. the Arians appear to have made active use of literary forgery. In their interests was made the longer edition of the Ignatian epistles, which Zahn has conjecturally attributed to Acacius of Caesarea. Interpolations of Arian tendency were also made in the Clementine Recognitions. Our writer used Josephus. He had also, besides the Ascension of Isaiah, another O.T. apocryphal book (not the book of Jubilees), from which he learned the names of Cain and Abel's sisters, fuller details about the sacrifice of Isaac, was enabled to clear Judah from the guilt of incest in his union with Tamar, etc. He had further N.T. Apocrypha, which, though not absolutely authoritative, might, in his opinion, be read with pleasure. These related in full detail the story of the Magi, compendiously told by St. Matthew, telling how they had learned to expect the appearance of the star from a book preserved in their nation, called the book of Seth, and had in consequence for generations kept a systematic look-out for this star. Probably the same book told him that Joseph was not present when the angel appeared to Mary, and related how our Lord conferred His own baptism on John the Baptist. Directly or indirectly the writer was much indebted to Origen, and there may be traces of acquaintance with two or three other anti-Nicene fathers. His fanciful interpretations of Scripture, though including some few of what may be called patristical commonplaces, seem to be mostly original. With reference, however, to the question of authorship, it is important to determine whether his coincidences with St. Augustine are purely accidental. He is certainly no follower of Augustine. He has little in common with that father's comments on the same passages of St. Matthew, and differs in various details, e.g. (49, 205) he follows Origen's division of the Commandments, making |Honour thy father and mother| the fifth, and (p.218) counting it as belonging to the first table; yet he appears to have been acquainted with Augustine's Enarrationes on the Psalms, as he has scarcely a quotation from the Psalms which does not shew some resemblance to Augustine's comment on the same passage; e.g. (4, 43) in Ps. viii.4, |The heavens, the work of Thy fingers| mean the Holy Scriptures; (5, 37) on Ps. xc.11, the remark |Portatur non quasi infirmus sed propter honorem potestatis| verbally agrees with Augustine's |Obsequium angelorum non ad infirmitatem domini pertinet sed ad illorum honorificentiam.| There is a striking verbal similarity (7, 52) between the comment on |mittentes retia| and Augustine's remarks on that subject in Ps. lxiv.4. The interpretation that the |mountains| to which Christians are to flee are the Holy Scriptures may have been suggested by Augustine in Ps. lxxv.2; see also the sermon (46) |de Pastoribus.|

Our author lays claim to no great antiquity. He says (52, 218) that the time since our Lord's ascension had been nearly as long as the life of an antediluvian patriarch. Accordingly Mill (Praef. N.T.) fixes his date a.d.961. In favour of the late date there is the use of the medieval word |bladum| for corn, though we do not know the exact date when such words crept into popular language. But a very strong argument for an earlier date is that the author's studies appear all to have lain in Christian literature earlier than the middle of the 5th cent.; and that he appears to know nothing of any of the controversies in the Christian church after that date. Making all allowance for the narrowing influence of a small sect, we find it hard to believe that the type of Arianism which existed at the time specified could have been preserved in such complete purity two or three centuries later. Our author does not appear to have lived in an Arian kingdom outside the limits of the Roman empire. He draws illustrations (30, 130) from the relative powers of the offices praefectus, vicarius, consul; from the fact that a |solidus| which has not the |charagma Caesaris| is to be rejected as bad (38, 160). When he wrote, heathenism was not extinct, as appears from the end of Hom.13 and from what he says (10, 13) as to the effect on the heathen of the good or bad conversation of Christians. All things considered, we are not disposed to date the work later than the middle of the 5th cent., which would allow it time to grow into such repute in an expurgated form as to pass for Chrysostom's with Nicolas I. If so early a date can be assigned to it, we have at once a claimant for its authorship in the Arian by Maximinus, who held a conference with St. Augustine. The Opus Imperfectum was written by an Arian bishop at a distance from his people, as Maximinus then was. The doctrine of the two writers is identical, and there are points of agreement in what Maximinus says as to the temporal penalties to which the expression of his opinions was liable, and as to the duty, notwithstanding, of confessing the truth before men. Maximinus, while in Africa, could hardly help making some acquaintance with the writings of St. Augustine, and might very conceivably adopt his exegesis of particular passages, though on the whole slightly regarding his authority.

[G.S.]

Publius, a solitary
Publius (3), a solitary, commemorated by Theodoret in his Religiosa Historia, c. v., born at Zeugma, on the Hellespont, of a family of senatorial rank. His person and mental endowments were equally remarkable. On his father's death he sold all he inherited from him, and distributing it to those in need, built for himself a small hut on high ground about 7 miles from his native town, where he passed the remainder of his days. He devoted his whole time to psalmody, reading the Scriptures, and prayer, together with the labour necessary for his maintenance and the entertainment of strangers, and latterly for the government of his brotherhood. His reputation for sanctity attracted many, whom he lodged in small huts near his own. He exercised a very strict oversight, imposing on them a very severe rule of abstinence and nightly prayer. After a while, on the advice of one of these fellow-ascetics, he erected a common house, or coenobium, that they might derive profit from their companions' virtues, and all be more immediately under his eye. At first all his fellow-coenobites were Greeks; but the native Syrians having expressed a desire to join the society, he built another house for them, and between the two erected a church common to both, where each might attend matins and evensong, singing alternately in their own language. This double coenobite establishment remained to Theodoret's time, who gives a record of its successive provosts.

[E.V.]

Pulcheria, daughter of emperor Arcadius
Pulcheria (2), Sept.10, daughter of the emperor Arcadius and sister and guardian of Theodosius II. She practically ruled the eastern empire for many years. For her secular history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. She was only two years older than her brother, whose education she superintended, having been born Jan.19, 399. She was declared Augusta and empress July 4, 414, and at once entrusted with the management of affairs. She was learned and vigorous, could speak and write Latin and Greek, personally investigated the affairs of state, directed much attention to religion, and brought up her brother in the strictest orthodoxy (Soz. H. E. iv.1). She was a correspondent of St. Cyril during the Nestorian controversy, and two letters are still extant from him written in 430, requesting her assistance (see Mansi, iv.618-883). In 450 she had a long correspondence with pope Leo and his archdeacon Hilarius on the subject of Eutyches and the Monophysite heresy. We possess also an epistle of hers addressed to the Palestinian monks and another to one Bessa, abbess of a convent at Jerusalem, both in defence of the council of Chalcedon. Bishops and clergy from every part of the empire appealed to her and on every subject. Theodoret (Ep.43) wrote in 445 about the taxation of his episcopal city of Cyrrhus; the clergy of Ephesus, in 448, concerning the episcopate of Bassianus. She had in early life taken a vow of virginity in conjunction with her sisters Arcadia and Marina. In 450 she was obliged to assume the government of the empire, and feeling herself incompetent for the task married Marcian, an eminent general. She reigned till her death, Feb.18, 453. She convoked and assisted at the fourth general council of Chalcedon. Her devotion to the culture of relics was very great. She transported to Constantinople those of St. Chrysostom with great pomp in 438, and of the 40 martyrs of Sebaste in 446 (Soz. H. E. ix.2). Ceillier (viii.471, 533, x.20, 67, 213-226) gives fully her religious history. Hefele's Councils (Clark's trans. t. iii.) gives details of her action against Nestorius and Eutyches.

[G.T.S.]

Purpurius, bp. of Limata
Purpurius, bp. of Limata, or Liniata, some place in Numidia, a truculent ruffian, mentioned both by Optatus and Augustine as a sample of the leaders of the Donatists (Morcelli, Afr. Chr. i.205). For some cause unknown he murdered his own nephews in the prison of Mileum, and when taxed with the crime threatened the same to any who stood in his way (Opt. i.13; Aug. Brevic. Coll. iii.15, 27 ; c. Gaud. i.16, 17; c. Cresc. iii.27, 30). This had taken place before the council of Cirta, a.d.305. Purpurius was also dishonest, for of the money distributed by Lucilla in bribes (a.d.311) his share amounted to 100 folles. At some time, perhaps soon after 313, when Christian worship was made legal and heathenism became unpopular, advantage appears to have been taken by some of the |baser sort| of Christians to plunder the heathen temples, and Purpurius carried off some cups from the temple of Serapis, probably of Carthage. This theft was brought to light at the inquiry held by Zenophilus, a.d.320. But the result of the inquiry is unknown, as the MS. is imperfect (Mon. Vet. Don. iv. pp.172, 173, ed. Oberthür).

[H.W.P.]

<<  Contents  >>





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