it = = aa te my sat PPS e ib abot + nee E55 et Siete uae tt ep ® eos | ped He iania ta “24 ) Oh Pegg rigesee gs" pak nie a TE ate rig of. Cote cube ates at THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH F, J. FOAKES-JACKSON By F, J. FOAKES-JACKSON Studies in the Life of the Early Church. The History of the Christian Church from the Earliest Times to A.D. 461. The Biblical History of the Hebrews to the Christian Era. A Brief Biblical History—Old Testament. A Brief Biblical History—New Testament. THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH From the Earliest Times to A.D. 461 BY F, J. FOAKES-JACKSON BELLOW OF JESUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND HON. CANON OF PETERBOROUGH, BRIGG’S GRADUATE PROFESSOR OF CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK NEW a YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY First Edition, March, 1892. Second Edition, February, 1898. Third Edition, October, 1902. Fourth Edition, December, 1905. Fifth Edition, Fuly, 1909. Sixth Edition, September, 19f4. Seventh Edition, New York, August, 1924. Eighth Edition, August, 1927. THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH oe Cc —— PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PREFACE I have been requested by J. Hall & Son, the English publishers, and George H. Doran Company of New York to issue a new edition of this work for America. That there should be a demand for this work on this side of the Atlantic is naturally gratifying to me. It has not been necessary to make many alterations in a work which has been subject to revision for more than thirty years. The few changes are in the form of addition to the notes of the earlier chapters. Ha eet Union Theolegical Seminary, New York. SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. THE PREPARATION OF THE WORLD FOR CHRISTIANITY. B.C. 535—63. The ruin of the ancient Judaean community resulted in a church-nation, a people reorganized on a purely religious basis, The Dispersion of Israel foreshadowed the Christian dispensation ; the synagogues prepared the way for the churches. Under Hellenic influence the Jews began to draw more closely to Western ideas, They endeavoured to shew that their Scriptures had in- spired the philosophers of Greece. The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy their religion caused the Jews to revert to the Messianic hopes of the Prophets. This persecution introduced the idea of martyrdom: the sufferings of the martyrs increased the belief in a resurrection. Many fundamentally Christian ideas prevailed in the centuries immediately before Christ. The multi- plication of sects and parties—Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc.— testifies to the vitality of Judaism during this period. Proselytism, a new feature in Judaism, was both active and successful; though the Gentiles, whilst acknowledging the high moral teaching of the Jews, could not overcome their repugnance to Jewish life. The success of Jewish principles and the failure of Jewish ordinances to attract the heathen world testified to the need of a religion like Christianity. Greece and Rome both contributed to prepare the way for the Gospel, the one by philosophy, the other by the establish- ment of law and order. pp. I—1I4. CHAPTER II. THE TIMES OF THE CHRIST. B.C. 66—A.D, 29. The rise of the family of Herod on the ruins of the Asmonean dynasty, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the tragedies in the household of Herod the Great, were accompanied by a great revival of Messianic hopes. At his death Herod’s dominions were par- titioned among his sons, Judaea falling to Archelaus, who in A.D. 6 was deposed for misgovernment, and his territory incorporated into the Roman Empire and placed under a procurator. This caused the rebellion of Judas of Galilee and the rise of the Zelots, who refused to acknowledge any king but Jehovah. The hostility between Jew and Gentile had become more keen than ever when the Baptist delivered his message. Jesus Christ began His preaching in almost the same words as the Baptist, and His work was one of gradual self-revelation. He revealed the nature of His kingdom, then of His mission as the Christ, and lastly He declared His Divinity. pp- 15—28. eo vu Vili CONTENTS, : CHAPTER III. THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES, A.D. 29—96. The Church, according to the Acts of the Apostles, began in Jerusalem as a purely Jewish institution, first under St. Peter, afterwards under James the Lord’s brother. The Hellenistic Jews soon joined the infant Church, and developed a missionary spirit. The Gospel was preached throughout Syria, and the Gentiles began to seek admittance to the Church. The influence of the Church of Jerusalem seems to have waned somewhat after the persecution of Herod Agrippa I. Owing to the zeal of the Christians at Antioch, Barnabas and Paul were sent forth on their mission to Asia Minor. This is the real starting point of Gentile Christianity. St. Paul crossed into Europe, and the Acts of the Apostles ends with his arrival at Rome. By the close of the Apostolic age churches had been founded in most parts of the Empire, and legends assign to each of the Twelve Apostles spheres of work, some of which were in the remotest countries of the known world, pp. 29—42. CHAPTER IV. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT, : A.D. 14—156. The Roman State, though naturally tolerant of ideas, could not endure an unauthorised religious society like the Church. As belonging to an illegal sect the Christians were liable to constant attacks owing to popular frenzy, often stimulated by the Jews. The government for a variety of reasons made no determined effort to stamp out Christianity during the earlier ages of the Church. The different emperors varied in their attitude towards the Christians. Nero persecuted to avert suspicion from himself; — Domitian for domestic reasons. Trajan in his correspondence with Pliny regulated the procedure in regard to the Christians: Ignatius’ memorable journey from Antioch to martyrdom at Rome took place under Trajan. Under Hadrian the Apologists for Christianity began to make their appearance; and in the reign of Antoninus, Polycarp, the last hearer of an Apostle, suffered at Smyrna. | pp. 43—62. CHAPTER V. THE CONQUEST OF HEATHENISM BY CHRISTIANITY. A.D. 161—313. The virtues of Marcus Aurelius, his Stoicism and love of law, made him a persecutor; and he approved of the terrible martyr- doms of Lyons and Vienne. His profligate son Commodus left the Church in peace; but when order was restored after his death, Septimius Severus continued the persecution ofthe Church, During CONTENTS. ix the first half of the third century the Christians were left in com- parative peace, and even encouraged; but Decius in A.D. 250 made a resolute attempt to suppress the Church. This was renewed under Valerian; but his successor Gallienus made Christianity a religio licita, A long period of peace preceded the outbreak of the Diocletian persecution, which continued, at least locally, down to the victory of Constantine over Maxentius near Rome. The first act of the conqueror was to issue the famous edict of Milan, giving the Christians complete liberty of conscience. pp. 63—92. CHAPTER VI. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. A.D. 70—154. Theories resembling those of the old Tiibingen School, which assigned a very late date to most of the New Testament, have now been generally abandoned. The idea of a sharp division between Jewish and Gentile Christians has also ceased to be regarded as even plausible. The New Testament, as a whole, is looked upon as a product of the first century; and the Apostolic Fathers are a sort of inferior sequel to it. The Lfzstle of Barnabas imitates somewhat unsuccessfully the allegorical methods found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Zhe Teaching of the Twelve Aposiles is a sort of Jewish Christian catechism, throwing much light on early church life. Clement is the author of a genuine Epistle from the Roman to the Corinthian church, and the same Father is credited with other writings. ‘The letters of Ignatius, written on his journey from Antioch to Rome, where he was to suffer, shew the intensity of the spirit of martyrdom, and the growth of episcopacy. A great controversy has raged about their genuine- ness. Papias of Hierapolis and Polycarp of Smyrna represent the churches of Asia. The latter, as the pupil of St. John and the teacher of St. Irenaeus, is the link which binds the Church of the first age to that of the close of the second century. pp. 93—121. CHAPTER VII. ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLES OF GNOSTICISM. A.D. 60—200. Gnosticism was the attempt to mingle the religions and ideas of the East with Christianity. Its great underlying principle was the view that all that is material is evil. We see traces of Gnos- ticism in the New Testament. In some cases the Gnostic sects set all ideas of Christian morality at defiance, The Ophites were the first Gnostics—the followers of Basilides, Valentinus and Marcion were representatives of different tendencies of current thought. The Judaizing sects of Gnostics and Marcion’s conflict with them are next dealt with, Gnosticism affected the Church by forcing its x CONTENTS, teachers to formulate their views and determine their canon of Scripture. Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria all combated Gnosticism. The rise of the Manichaean heresy marked the close of the old Gnosticism and the beginning of a long conflict with the Catholic Church. pp. 122—152. CHAPTER VIII. CHRISTIAN THOUGHT IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES. A.D. 100—300, In the early stages of religion God is thought of as personal, but as the ideas of the infinite and eternal gain ground He begins to be regarded as an abstraction. Then the notion of God being known by His Word or Wisdom developes. Jewish theology reached this point in Philo, and the Christians regarded the In- carnation as the supreme manifestation of the Word. From this starting point Christian Theology is traced through the Letter to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Theophilus (the first to speak of a Trinity), Clement, and Origen. The opposite tendencies to those of the Church Fathers take different forms of Monarchianism, In the East, Sabellius and Paul of Samosata are typical Monar- chians. In the West, the chief Monarchians were the two Theodoti, Praxeas and Noetus; their opponents were Tertullian and Novatian. The doctrines of human nature, the Holy Spirit, Redemption, Millenarianism and the Resurrection are next dealt with ; but it is necessary to remember that the theology of this age was somewhat undeveloped and that it still awaited the time when it should be regularly formulated. pp. 153—179. CHAPTER IX, CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES. A.D. I100—300. Christianity in many respects expressed the general tendencies of thought in the second and third centuries, There was a strong tendency towards Monotheism. This is seen in the worship of Serapis, and in the increasing attraction of Mithraism, the sacra- ments of which strangely resembled those of the Church. The Mysteries also expressed the desire of the age. Philosophy tended towards moral discipline ; between Stoicism and Christianity there were seeming affinities, though at bottom there was a real difference, Neo-Platonism arose, and though it seemed to have many ideas in common with Christianity, the philosophers of this school became the bitterest foes of the Church. Nevertheless Neo-Platonism influenced the development of Christian theology. The Apologists are next alluded to as presenting the Christian attitude towards zeathen thought. pp. 180—208, b2 wae” Te! CONTENTS. xl CHAPTER X., THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH. | A.D. 29—313. The Church existed from the first, but its development was gradual. The earliest churches were small and widely scattered ; the dangers of persecution and heresy tended to unite and organize them. The first churches were, perhaps, modelled on the syna- gogues; soon however Christian peculiarities became manifest. But, from a survey of the subject in the New Testament, the Apostolic Churches of Jerusalem, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and Rome seem to have had different forms of government. In St. Clement’s letter addressed to Corinth we notice a marked distinction between clergy and laity. In the days of Ignatius episcopacy existed at least in Asia; but by the close of the second century it was unquestionably universal. In the third century St. Cyprian formulated his views on the character of episcopacy. There were, however, attempts to restrain the growing power of the clerical order, and to these are due the rise of Montanism and Novatianism, as well as the dispute about Origen’s right to teach. The Sacraments are treated of, and brief accounts of she Eucharist in St. Paul, the Dzdache, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and the Apostolic Constitutions, are given, Then follows a sketch of the social side of Christian life. pp. 209—242, CHAPTER XI. THE CHURCHES OF ROME, CARTHAGE, AND ALEXANDRIA. A.D. 54—313. The remarkable position of the Roman church is due partly to the importance of the city, but also to the Apostolic origin of the see and to the virtues of the early Roman church. St. Paul’s work in the church founded before his arrival at Rome, is described. Despite the silence of the New Testament, St. Peter’s sojourn at Rome is unquestionable. The first bishops of Rome are obscure, but we have a letter from Clement “fourth from the Apostles”, Christianity soon made its way into the imperial family, and some of Domitian’s relatives suffered for professing it. The letter of Ignatius to the Romans, and the visit of Polycarp to Rome during the Paschal controversy, attest the importance of the church. The story of Hippolytus and Callistus reveals to us the social condition of Christians at Rome. The Decian persecution shews the nobler side, several successive popes being martyrs. The last part of the third century, so far as the Roman church is concerned, is somewhat obscure, except for the action of Pope Dionysius, A.D, 259—269. Pett CONTENTS. ‘The African Church had no apostolic founder and its origin is unknown ; but no church produced grander examples of Christian constancy. Tertullian, a type of the sternest form of African Christianity, joined the Montanists because he was dissatisfied with the lenity of the Catholic Church. Cyprian, who albeit a Catholic was an admirer of Tertullian, guided the church of Carthage through the perils of the Decian persecution and exalted the claims of episcopacy. He had a controversy with Pope Stephen on the question of rebaptism. . The Alexandrian church was the meeting place of the culture of the East and West, the home of Christian philosophy. Its early constitution of a bishop and twelve presbyters, who elected and consecrated their leader, is peculiar. Its chief centre of interest was the Catechetical School with its great teachers, Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, The career of Origen, his youth, his teaching, his travels, his persecutions, and his critical labours, is traced. He was the founder of the School of Antioch, the rival of Alexandria. pp. 243—278. CHAPTER XII. CONSTANTINE IN THE WEST. THE EMPIRE AND THE CHURCH, A.D. 313—323. The victory of Constantine over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge was regarded as a Christian triumph and connected with a Divine vision. It was followed by the edict of Milan. Constan- tine’s policy towards the Church was marked by caution. He introduced Christian ideas under the cover of much official paganism, and his words and actions were studiously ambiguous. His legislation, however, bears unmistakeable traces of Christian influence. His chief Christian adviser at this time was Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain. His first difficulty in connection with Christianity was the Donatist schism in Africa, arising out of the consecration of Caecilian as bishop of Carthage, by Felix, an alleged frvaditor in the Diocletian persecution. The case was tried at Rome and at Arles, and Caecilian’s consecration pro- nounced valid. But his opponents would not listen to reason, and under Donatus they formed a formidable schism. In 323 Constantine overthrew his last rival Licinius and became master of the whole Empire. pp. 279—z296. CHAPTER XIII. ARIANISM AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA. A.D, 318—337. In the East a dispute between Alexander, bishop of Alex- andria and the priest Arius, led to serious consequences. Arius CONTENTS. Xill accused Alexander of Sabellianism, and propounded a theory that vhrist, though God, was not God in the same sense as God the Father. Arius appealed to his fellow students of the School of Lucian ; and finally Alexander excommunicated him. Constantine called the council of Nicaea to settle the question. Arius and his heresy were at once condemned; but the party of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, wanted a more indefinite creed than that proposed by Alexander and his friends. In the end the Alexandrians induced the Council to accept their creed. Athanasius, the deacon, became bishop of Alexandria in A.D. 328. The friends of Eusebius tried to discredit him, and managed to have him banished and Arius recalled. Arius however died on the day appointed for his restoration to the Church, At Rome, just after the council, Constantine had great trouble owing to dissensions in his own family, and his son Crispus was executed. To this period belongs the story of the Donation to pope Silvester, on which the papal claims to temporal dominion were based. After the visit to Rome, St. Helena, mother of Constantine, discovered the Holy Places at Jerusalem, Constantine was not baptized till just before his death in A.D. 337. PP. 297—327. CHAPTER XIV. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. A.D. 337—361. Constantius believed that he could unite the Church if the Creed of Nicaea and the homodousion formulary were set aside. This was at first the view of the so-called ‘ Conservatives’ headed by Eusebius of Caesarea. The Eusebians, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, were resolved to introduce Arianism, whilst the ‘Conservatives’ were at heart orthodox, but disliked Athanasius. So the two parties combined at Antioch to get rid of the homoouston and Athanasius. Julian, bishop of Rome, when appealed to, supported Athanasius, and so did the emperor Constans, brother to Constantius, Athanasius, who had returned on the death of Constantine, had been again banished from his see, but was restored by the Council of Sardica A.D. 343 and returned in A.D. 346. Then followed a period of tranquillity, during which the Arians gathered strength by attacking the allies of Athanasius. When Constantius, on the death of Magnentius, became master of the West he forced the bishops to renounce Athanasius and finally drove him from Alexandria in a.D. 356. The Arians then put forward a succession of creeds at Sirmium; and finally forced the Western bishops at Ariminum, and the Eastern at Seleucia, to subscribe to an Arian creed drawn up at Nicé in Thrace. The death of Constantius caused the controversy to cease for a time. pp: 328—350. XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER XV. JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION, A.D. 361—363. Julian and his elder brother Gallus were the sole survivors of the family of Constantine, whom the soldiers slew in A.D. 337; when Constantine II., Constans, and Constantius were made emperors. They were educated by Constantius and trained in the Christian discipline. Julian was even ordained a ‘ Reader’. Gallus in A.D, 351 was associated in the Empire and made Caesar. His misgovernment ended in his being summoned to Constantius, and being executed in a treacherous manner. Julian in the mean- time had long been secretly attached to the ancient religion. He was summoned to Milan by Constantius after his brother’s death, and shortly afterwards allowed to study at Athens. In A.D. 354 he was declared Caesar and sent to Gaul. He won great fame as a soldier; and when his troops were ordered to the East they rebelled and proclaimed him Augustus, Julian then openly pro- fessed heathenism and marched against Constantius; but the death of that emperor prevented a civil war. Julian’s short reign was an attempt to revive Paganism and to debase Christianity with- out persecuting its professors. It was a brilliant but complete failure. In A.D, 363 Julian was killed in battle, Pp. 35I—374. CHAPTER XVI. CONCLUSION OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY IN THE EMPIRE. A.D. 363—381. On the death of Constantius the Western Church reverted to the Nicene Creed, mainly owing to Athanasius’ wise action on his return to Alexandria. Antioch also, despite a serious schism, favoured orthodoxy. Jovian, Julian’s Christian successor, was followed by the impartial Valentinian in the West, and Valens, who favoured the Hlomoeam Arian, in the East. Great influence was exercised by the Cappadocian Fathers—Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus—on the side of orthodoxy, and, despite the imperial displeasure, the Creed of Nicaea was daily gaining ground. New heresies were arising as to the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the Godhead and Manhood in our Lord. After the defeat and death of Valens at Adrianople there was no further question as to the triumph of Nicene doctrine ; and at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 the Nicene Creed became the creed of the Empire. CHAPTER XVII. THE RXIGN OF THEODOSIUS AND THE FALL OF PAGANISM. A.D, 381—395. With the close of the Second General Council the Creed of Nicaea became the sole legal religion in the Roman empire, CONTENTS. XV Arianism, proscribed by law, made its home among the Teutonic nations. The old religions began to totter to their fall, as the destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria and of the heathen shrines in Gaul testified. The rigid enforcement of the new laws zgainst heresy in the case of Priscillian in Spain shocked the Christian conscience, but foreshadowed the days of persecution. Rome was at the height of its prestige as the holy city of antiquity ; but even there the old faith received a shock. St. Ambrose at Milan influenced Gratian to decline the office of Pontifex Maximus, and made Valentinian I1. refuse to restore ‘ Victory’ to the Senate House. Rome, under the fostering care of Pope Damasus, became acentre of Christian reverence. Ambrose in the meantime resisted the Empress Justina’s attempt to obtain recog- nition for Arianism at Milan, and exercised great influence over Theodosius when that emperor came to Italy. By the close of the fourth century the foundations of mediaeval Christianity were laid. Pp. 398—433- CHAPTER XVIII. THE EASTERN CHURCH AND THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERAL COUNCILS. A.D. 395—452. The Empire in theory remained united, but was practically divided by the descendants of Theodosius into East and West. Arcadius in Constantinople was the tool of ambitious favourites. The career of Synesius is an example alike of the state of transition in thought, and of the miseries of the provinces. The story of Chrysostom’s patriarchate at Constantinople shews the dissoluteness of the capital, the jealousy of Alexandria, and the power of the Emperor. This saint is a true sufferer for righteousness, The controversy about the two Natures of our Lord is traced from Apollinarius, who maintained practically one Nature in Christ, the Divine. The School of Antioch laid undue stress on the Human side of our Lord, but they were not challenged till Nestorius allowed the title Zeotokos to be refused to the Blessed Virgin. This was the signal for controversy. Cyril of Alexandria obtained the condemnation of Nestorius at Ephesus, and then came to terms with the Antiochene theologians. His successor, Dioscorus, managed to secure the support of Theodosius II., and finally, when Eutyches was accused of Monophysitism, obtained his acquittal at the ‘Latrocinium’ of Ephesus. On the death of Theodosius, Marcian and Pulcheria supported Leo, whose ‘Tome’ was accepted at Chalcedon, and the Egyptian church was gradually alienated from that of the Empire. PP- 434—476. Supplementary Note on ‘‘The Christological Controversy and Modern Thought.” pp. 476—478. Xvi CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIX. THE WESTERN CHURCH. A.D. 400—46I. The Latin aptitude for organization and government saved the Church whilst the Western Empire crumbled to pieces. In the fifth century the Western Church took the form which continued to exist for more than a thousand years, The three great factors in moulding it were (1) Jerome, the scholar, who produced the Vulgate; (2) Augustine, the theologian, who gave (@) an impulse to piety by his Con/fesstons, (6) a theory of the Church in his conflict with Donatism, (c) a theory of Grace in his refutations of Pela- gianism, (@) an ideal of government in his Czty of God; (3) the Church of Rome with her great Popes, Innocent and Leo the Great. Leo established his supremacy over Gaul, in the case of Hilary of Arles and Celidonius, as well as over Illyricum, Italy, Sicily and Spain. He is said to have saved Italy by his boldness in confronting Attila, and to have mitigated the horrors of the sack of Rome by Gaiseric. He was less fortunate in his interference with the affairs of the East; though at Chalcedon he gave the creed to Christendom. The greatness of his work lay in consolidating Roman Christianity curing the fall of Roman domination in the Western Empire. Pp. 479—54I. CHAPTER XX, ORIENTAL CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCHES OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE. Syrian Christianity implies the Church extending from the neighbourhood of Antioch to the Persian Gulf. Its chief home was Edessa: its origin the conversion of Abgar the Black, A.D. 50. The Syriac Versions are numerous and interesting. Fora long time the Diatessaron of Tatian was used in place of the four Gospels. Most of the country of Syrian Christianity was within the empire of Persia. In Persza the Faith was encountered by the Zoroastrian religion, and many Christians endured martyrdom. The Armenian is the first national church. Founded by St. Gregory the Illumin- ator, it bravely withstood the Persian fire worshippers, and is still in existence. The Christianity of the neighbouring country of Iberia or Georgia was introduced by the captive maiden St. Nina, a kinswoman of St. George. The £¢hiopzan church was founded in the days of St. Athanasius by Frumentius and Edesius. It continues as the native church of Abyssinia (Habesh), which has preserved the Book of Enoch. The Zeutonic peoples were as a rule Arians. Their great missionary was Ulfilas, the translator of CONTENTS. XVil the Bible into Gothic. Jre/and was converted by Papal mission- aries. Its first bishop was Palladius, and he was succeeded by Patrick, a Briton who had been taken captive to Ireland and was educated at Lerinum and Auxerre. Patrick landed near Wicklow A.D. 433, and about 441—3 was made Archbishop of Armagh. St. Ninian was the apostle of the northern Pic¢s. Ppp. 542— 5606. CHAPTER XXII, CHURCH LIFE IN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES, After the Edict of Milan the Christian Church ceased to be a persecuted society and entered upon a new career under the zgis of the Empire. The rapidity of its increase during the next few centuries is phenomenal, and would have been, humanly speaking, impossible but for its complete and elaborate organiza- tion. This followed geographically the same lines as the imperial system. The great capitals became the leading metropolitan churches, and their patriarchs corresponded to the chief officials of the Empire. Rome for a long time produced no great bishop ; but, nevertheless, the See constantly advanced in influence and in the estimation of other churches. Alexandria ruled all Egypt, and the power of its bishop extended to Athiopia. Antioch was regarded as the chief spiritual authority, not only in Syria but throughout the East. Constantinople, as New Rome, gradually won the second place and ranked next to the Apostolic See. The dioceses in many places were very extensive, the bishops being assisted by Chorepiscofi or county bishops. The functions of the priests varied in different places: at Rome and elsewhere only the bishop preached. The deacons occupied an important place. The minor orders were early in existence, and the ministry of women, though differing in places, was fully recognised. The legality of the marriage of the clergy was recognised, but not universally. Councils were the legislative and disciplinary courts of the Church, The church buildings are described, especially those of the basilican type. Their decorations were lavish. The Sacrament of Baptism was administered with much striking symbolism——for example at Jerusalem, according to the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, who also describes the Eucharistic Service. Preaching was very popular in the fourth century and reached a very high standard of excellence. The penitential discipline of the Church, the holy days, Christian charities, etc., are next treated. The passion for relics, the desire to visit holy places, and the survival of heathen customs under Christian forms, attest the waning spirituality of the Faith. Nevertheless, the Fathers drew a wise distinction between essentials and non-essentials. The Monastic XVIil CONTENTS. movement supplied an outlet for Christian zeal when the days of persecution were ended. Cenobitic life tended to curb its early extravagances, and made it the tremendous force which it ultimately became. ; pp. 567—588.. APPENDIX A. ON THE OPHITES, BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS., pp. 589—595. APPENDIX B. ROMAN CHRISTIANITY IN THE FirsT FouR CENTURIES, (By the Rev. A. C. JENNINGS, M.A., Rector of King’s Stanley.) The Catacombs and Early Monuments, pp. 596—616, INDEX, pp. 617—648. im 99 99 99 bY 99 DATES OF IMPORTANT EVENTS, erc. ews under Greek domination. B.C. 535—336 Vadaly under Persian domination, 333—175 175—135 The age of the Maccabees. 161—144 Jonathan, high priest. 144—135 Simon, high priest. 135—106 John Hyrcanus, high priest and ethnarch. Book of Enoch. 106—77 Alexander Jannaeus, high priest and king of Judaea, 77—65 Hyrcanus II. Pompey takes Jerusalem. Herod appointed Governor of Galilee. Herod King of Judaea. Herod makes Aristobulus high priest. Battle of Actium. Death of Mariamne, Herod rebuilds the Temple. Herod’s sons by Mariamne executed, § (cerca) BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST. 4 6 7 26 Death of Herod. Deposition of Archelaus, ethnarch of Judaea. Rebellion of Judas of Galilee. Pontius Pilate Procurator of Judaea. 29 (circa) THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION. 41 130 130 133 135 138 Herod Agrippa I. king of Judaea. Death of Herod Agrippa. St. Paul at Corinth. Jews expelled from Rome. Pomponia Graecina accused of practising foreign superstition. St. Paul writes to the Romans. St. Paul at Rome. Epistle to the Philippians, Fire at Rome. Persecution by Nero, St. Peter and St. Paul martyred in Rome. Destruction of Jerusalem. Death of Pomponia Graecina. Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthians. Flavius Clemens (Consul A.D. 95) executed, and Flavia Domitilla banished. Cerinthus (Judaizing Gnostic). Pliny’s Letter to Trajan. Martyrdom of Ignatius, Jews of Cyrene cause disturbances. Letter to Diognetus. Papias bishop of Hierapolis. (circa) Montanus in Phrygia, Basilides. (circa) Shepherd of Hermas. Pius I. bishop of Rome. Hadrian at Athens. Afo/ogies of Quadratus and Aristides. Suppression of the revolt of Barcochab. Jerusalem called Aelia Capitolina. Justin Martyr’s First Apology. 139 (cérca) Marcion at Rome. Valentinus at Rome. XIX XX DATES OF IMPORTANT EVENTS, ETC. A.D. 154 Polycarp at Rome. 156 Polycarp martyred at Smyrna. 165 Justin martyred at Rome. 166 The Annus Calamitosus. Plague at Rome. 171 Theophilus bishop of Antioch. 174 The war against the Quadi. ‘‘ The Thundering Legion.” 177 Persecution at Lyons and Vienne. 180 Persecution at Madaura in Africa. 182 Irenaeus bishop of Lyons. 193 Empire sold by auction to Didius Julianus. 196 (czrca) Praxeasat Rome. Montanists excommunicated by Victor. 200 (circa) Clement of Alexandria. 202 Law of Septimius Severus forbidding persons ‘‘/udaeos fieri”’. Monarchian disputes at Rome. Tertullian becomes a Montanist. Martyrdom of Perpetua and her companions. 219 Heliogabalus brings the idol of Emesa to Rome. Callistus bishop of Rome. ' 220 (circa) Hippolytus writes the Phzlosophumena. 231 Origen ordained a presbyter in Syria. 236 Hippolytus banished to Sardinia. 244 Beryllus of Bostra retracts his erroneous views of the Trinity. 247 Dionysius bishop of Alexandria. 248 Cyprian bishop of Carthage. 250 Persecution by Decius. 251 Novatian made bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius. 257 Edict of Valerian against the Christians. 258 Martyrdom of Cyprian. 260 Gallienus makes Christianity a re/egio léctta. 269 Synod to condemn Paul of Samosata. 276 Manes the heresiarch flayed alive by order of Persian king. 284 Accession of Diocletian. 303 Persecution under Diocletian. First three edicts. 304 Fourthedict. Illness of Diocletian. 308 Severe persecution under Galerius. 310 Edict of Toleration by Galerius. 311 Maximin persecutes in Syria. 312 Battle of the Milvian Bridge. 313 Defeat of Maximin by Licinius. Edict of Milan, 314 Synod of Arles. 316 Constantine pronounces sentence against the Donatists. 318 Outbreak of the Arian dispute at Alexandria. 321 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, excommunicates Arius. 321 Constantine grants the Donatists freedom of conscience. The Dzes Venerabilts Sols to be observed as a holiday. 323 Final defeat of Licinius. Constantine sole emperor. 325 Council of Nicaea. 326 Death of Crispus. 327 Helena’s visit to the Holy Land. 330 Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, deprived. 334 Constantinople completed. 335 Synod of Tyre. 336 Athanasius banished to Tréves. Death of Arius, 337. Death of Constantine. 339 Athanasius goes to Rome. ai DATES OF IMPORTANT EVENTS, ETC. Council of the Dedication, at Antioch. Councils of Sardica and Philippopolis. Deposition of Stephen, bishop of Antioch. Return of Athanasius to Alexandria. Revolt of Magnentius. Death of Constans. Photinus condemned at Sirmium. Defeat of Magnentius at Mursa. Councils at Milan. Constantius visits Rome. Expulsion of Athanasius from Alexandria. Arian triumphs at Ariminum and Seleucia. Homoean Synod at Constantinople. Death of Constantius, Julian at Antioch. Death of Julian. Revolt of Procopius. Semi-Arians approach Liberius. Election of Basil to See of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Death of Athanasius. Ambrose bishop of Milan. Defeat and death of Valens at Adrianople. Theodosius Augustus in the East. Second General Council at Constantinople. Death of Gratian. Troubles between Ambrose and Justina at Milan, The imperial statues thrown down at Antioch. Conversion of St. Augustine. Destruction of the Serapeum. Massacre of Thessalonica. Death of Valentinian II. Usurpation of Eugenius, Death of Theodosius. John Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople. Exile of Chrysostom. Rome taken by Alaric. Synod of Diospolis. Pelagianism condemned. Nestorius bishop of Constantinople. Vandals invade Africa. Death of Augustine. Third General Council, at Ephesus, Carthage taken by Gaiseric. Leo elected Pope. Death of Cyril of Alexandria, The Latrocintum at Ephesus. Death of Theodosius II. Pulcheria marries Marcian. Battle of the Catalaunian Fields (Chalons). Fourth General Council, at Chalcedon, Rome sacked by Gaiseric. Death of Leo the Great, a Pa 2 ’ t J CONTEMPORARY EMPERORS AND BISHOPS OF ROME. ed EMPERORS. BISHOPS. Tiberius Caius (Caligula) Claudius DUPER rere ccd cane o5h 055 552658 beaded cccecccec St. Peter and St. Paul in Galba Rome. Otho 280 068 04046805 008 086 86004 O94 888 SE5888 Linus Vitellius MGs Bete ed ecabatinasencesdonsaxses sees. Anencletus oe Nesg Pith ide casasivesies sésenrcerces) Clement Euarestus PRMIM INR e ceo vavsn pao nx seca vececs ivi'see ses vous’ } Alexander Sixtus I. Telesphorus Hyginus Pius I. Anicetus Soter Eleutherus Commodus A.D. PRIOR srabipcadhenkontatarscsease ces snecsioos see LOO. VICCOF BM BTS os das oss Sse sccacs es pesone ees sue Septimius Severus............0sssceceseseeveee 198 Zephyrinus RAG CANSCUIG os ccecaccseavesevsosase one DRIER sc a cvaseleicevan nes teeces mardvassves BPR OR Coos isare cons se saccesosssscsesse. 219 Callistus T, PRIGZAGGED SEVELUS ...05.c0cccsccecscescesenes - 223 \ Urban I. isd ssiscdessscerr-conse 290. POntanuy Maximin ‘the “Thracian .. siats cobaececdincnsseas. 235% 0 AADLETOS Two Gordians ...... GiiRis oes re sak bhagss sont) 250+ 1d A UIAT DRIER Lela r espa usvnccseecosvevses sectoncen BE CP TADIAY ines cxccevenecarageiececs ces BO eres ti cea tases! ). UlCheria and Marcial 455 Maxims. (0 vsscscesssnnss sstuesueamecnte oe enees 457: Majoran yids 457 LeolI., the Thracian «(401 Libius Severus .a5.- ccoesueenee es 461 Hilarus [Ricimer, without the e ttle) 467. Anthems ....\...deccesececemeueseuceonsooese ven) GIMeiEs tn tna anna 472 Olybrius (ches ee ee 473. Glycerius: 3.0 iisees pone oon aus ee cee ee 474 Julius Nepos...... 474. Leolll., the Younger Romulus 475 Zeno the Isaurian THE HISTORY OF ; 5 . ' ‘ i n ! é9 / i oe ae Pee ‘ 4 ‘4 * L” ‘ee wm sl he ie CHRISTIAN CHURCH THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CHAPTER: -I, THE PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY. BrroreE entering upon the history of the Christian Church it is necessary to enquire how it came to pass that such an institution became possible. For, while recognising the special work of God’s providence in | the planting of Christianity upon earth, we are equally bound to admit that He employs natural means for the furtherance of His purpose. The Apostle is writing with historical accuracy when he tells the Galatians that “when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son” ;# and, humanly speaking, it is difficult for us to imagine that Christianity could have made rapid progress at any earlier period of the history of mankind. The constitution of primitive society would have been an insuperable bar to the preaching of the gospel; nor could a universal religion have had any attractions so long as the ancient ideas of national cults and tribal gods retained their hold on the imaginations of men. Before the civilized world could be prepared to receive Christianity, it was necessary that the narrow and exclusive spirit which is so greatly fostered in small nationalities should be on the wane, and that a general desire should arise among men to acknowledge the I, Gal. iv. 4 A 4 ALEXANDRIA. (CH. L ancient worship of Israel—the holy spot, the altar and the sacrifice—had no place in the new assembly, where men might meet to worship the God of their fathers outside the limits of the Holy Land without a sanctuary or priesthood. In this way it became possible for the religion of Israel to exist throughout the world, and men became familiarised with the idea of a faith forming a bond of brotherhood. When Israel ceased to be a nation it became a church, the limits of which were not defined by the boundaries of a small territory, but by the words of a revealed law and by acommon faith. ‘Thus in the Israel during Silence of the Persian period, Israel was the Grecian being prepared for a more active sphere Rosas ek of work under the Macedonian conquerors Ve ’ of Western Asia; the dispersion, which had hitherto been directed eastward, now taking a west- ward course. In addition to Jerusalem and Babylon, Alexandria, founded by Alexander in B.c. 332, became the third great centre of Judaism. The foundation of this city, which still continues to be the chief link binding together East and West, marks the commence- ment of a new phase of human life. Three peoples most different in character were assembled in one city which the genius of the Macedonian conqueror had chosen for the trading capital of his empire. The Egyptian, the Jew, and the Greek became fellow citizens of Alexandria, and the influence of each nation was felt by the other two. It was here that the Jews first studied the philosophy of Greece and translated their Scriptures from the ancient Hebrew. More liberal ideas than had hitherto been possible began to prevail, and the leading Jewish teachers hastened to recognise that the wisdom of the heathen was illumined by many divine truths. The national pride of the Jewish doctors, as well as their consciousness that all truth must be a revelation of the One True God, led them to endeavour to prove that the great philosophers of Hellas had borrowed from the in any way prominent in the history of the struggle under the Maccabees. We can only infer that meetings of Jews for the purpose of study of the Law and worship existed from the time of the Captivity and even earlier, (Ezek. viii. 1, xiv. I, xx. I, xxxiii. 31.) In N.T. times the synagogue was well known as an ancient institution, Acts xv. 2I. : ieee a Se CH. 1.] JEWS AND GREEKS, 5 teachings of the Hebrew prophets, and that the real master of such teachers as Pythagoras and Plato was the great lawgiver Moses.’ Nor did Jewish theologians disdain to use the language of Greek philosophy to express their views concerning the nature and being of God. It seemed at first as though there would be harmony between two nations so utterly different in temperament as the Hellenic and the Jewish. The Greeks were not at first repelled by their contact with Judaism. Alexander treated the Jews with great favour, and the Ptolemies and Seleucidae agreed in their policy of granting privileges to the nation. The widely ac- cepted legend that the Sacred Books of the Hebrews were translated at the instigation of Ptolemy Philadelphus is an example of the interest the Greeks felt in the religion of their fellow settlers in Alexandria. The story of the translation of the Septuagint, as the Greek version of the Scriptures was termed, related in a supposed letter from a Greek named Aristeas to his friend Philocrates,* is an example of the eagerness with which the Alexandrian Jews sought to prove the honour in which their sacred books were held by the first Greek kings of Egypt; and a literature of forgeries rapidly grew up with the object of shewing that the most revered teachers of antiquity were imbued with the spirit of the Hebrew sages. The venerable names of Orpheus and of the mysterious Sibyls were attached to hymns and oracles designed to glorify Judaism in the eyes of the Greeks; and literary frauds of this description were for a considerable time practised at I. Hermippus (B.C. 200) traced some of the doctrines of Pythagoras to Jewish sources, Josephus ¢. Apzonem 1. 22. Aristobulus, who is quoted by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelica and by Clement of Alexandria in a commentary on the Pentateuch addressed to Ptolemy Philometor, maintains that Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato all followed Moses in his teaching about the word of God. See esp. Praep. Ev. X11. 12. 2. For Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem see Josephus, Amz. XI. viii. 4, 5. He allowed the Jews to enlist in the army and yet obey their own laws. For Seleucus Nicator and Antiochus the Great, see Jos. Antzg. X11. iii., and for Ptolemy Philadelphus, Jos. Am¢zg. x11. ii. Mahaffy, Zhe Empire of the Ptolemzes, and art. ‘ Israel and Greece’, /uterpreter, July, 1907. 3. The letter is printed separately in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus, See also Swete, /ntroduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 519. 6 JUDAISM IN PALESTINE. (cH. 1 Alexandria by Jews and Christians alike.’ Not without significance also was the attempt to make a Holy Land in Egypt itself. Onias, the son of the High Priest of that name, fled to Egypt after the murder of his father, B.c. 171, when the High Priesthood was usurped by the unscrupulous Menelaus. Onias rendered important services to Ptolemy Philometer in his war with his brother Physcon, and was created Ethnarch of the Jews of Alexandria. Ptolemy at his request granted to Onias the temple at Leontopolis in the Heliopolitan nome. As Onias was undoubtedly the legal High Priest, we have the remarkable example of a temple built in defiance of the Law served by High Priests of the purest descent; and this anomaly continued down to the time of the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.’ | The peaceful relations between the Jews and Greeks of Alexandria are in marked contrast with the bitter feuds which distracted the Holy Land. The glorious High Priesthood of Simon the Just, B.c. 270, closed a period of tranquillity. Of this great man history is comparatively silent, but as Gratz truly remarks, “It is always a favourable testimony to an historical person- age when tradition gives her voice in his favour.” The author of Ecclesiasticus describes in poetical language with all the richness of Oriental imagery the appearance of Simon when he officiated in the Temple. His practical wisdom is evidenced by the improvements he carried out at Jerusalem; and his recorded sayings give us a high idea of the largeness of his mind and the generosity of his sentiments. With him ends the 1, See Edersheim, Yesus the Messiah, bk. 1. ch. 3. The most important are the Szby//ime Oracles (part of bk. 111. dates from B.C. 160) ; the Book of Enoch, the oldest parts of which date from about B.c. 170; and the Book of Fubilees, probably written about the time of Christ. 2. Josephus, Axfzg. XIII. iii, Onias supported his right to build a temple by quoting Isaiah xix. 18, 19, that ‘‘ there should be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt”. The very name of the city was said to have been given by the prophet. ‘* One shall be called the city of Heres,” that is Heliopolis, the City of the Sun. See Milman, est. of the Fews, il. 25. For Simon the Just see Ecclus. L.: vv. 1—4, his care for the safety of Jerusalem; 5—2I, the magnificence with which he conducted the services of the Temple. His pupil Antigonus of Socho has preserved CH. 1.] JUDAISM PERSECUTED. 7 age of the ‘men of the Great Synagogue’, as the teachers from Ezra to Simon are styled, and the struggle between Judaism and Hellenism commences. Into the details of this great contest it is unnecessary to enter. It is sufficient to remark that it culminated in the heroic struggle sustained by Mattathias the priest of Modin and his sons headed by Judas the Maccabee against the mad attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to Hellenize Judaea.* The results were of the utmost importance to Christianity. In the first place, the martyr spirit obtained recognition; in the second, the Messianic hopes were again aroused. The martyrs of the Mac- cabean age taught the world the lesson, that opinions for which men are prepared to die possess an unquench- able vitality. The obscure and unknown victims who suffered nameless tortures rather than abandon the Law of their God were the precursors of the Christian martyrs whose blood became the seed of the Church. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he sees the approach of persecution, recalls the memory of the Jewish martyrs of this period? An age in which men are laying down their lives for what they are convinced is the truth is sure to be one in which they are led to dwell on the belief in a future life, and on the prospects of a glorious deliverance. There must be a growing con- viction that the God in whose name they are suffering two characteristic sayings of Simon. See Gritz, History of the Jews, ch. xxi. His date is uncertain, as from the Talmudic accounts it is not clear whether he was Simon I. (300—292) or Simon II. 1. Five books of Maccabees are extant. The first book, which formerly existed in Hebrew, relates the events from B.c. 170 to 135. The second book begins with the attempt of Heliodorus to rob the Temple and closes with the defeat of Nicanor by Judas: B.c. 180 (?) to 161. The third book is probably of Alexandrian origin and relates events before the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Its date has been placed as late as A.D. 67. The fourth book is also entitled ‘ About the Sovereignty of Reason’, and is ascribed to Josephus by Eusebius and St. Jerome. The fifth book contains a History of the Jews from the time of Heliodorus to that of our Lord. A translation of the three books not in our Apocrypha has been published by Dr. Cotton. 2. Heb. xi. 35. ‘‘ Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance.” With this compare II Maccabees vi. 30, where Eleazar says ‘‘ To the Lord ... it is manifest that whereas I might have been delivered from death I endure sore pains.” 3- II Maccabees abounds with allusions to a future life: vii, 14, 36, xii, 43, xiv. 46. 8 NEW TRUTHS GRASPED. (CH. L has joys untold in store for His saints whom He is preparing shortly to avenge. The Jews in their struggle with Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors were un- doubtedly animated by these hopes, to which their, familiarity with the Old Testament gave a strong” Messianic colouring. Without entering into a discussion as to the exact date of the Book of Daniel, we may remark that its narratives of the heroism of the Jews in Babylon were well calculated to inspire the courage of the persecuted people with fresh determination, whilst the predictions of the rise and fall of earthly empires which were to precede the establishment of the eternal kingdom of God were found to be particularly consoling., It has been truly said that the Book of Daniel is the first philosophy of history. The nation is widened into the world, the restored kingdom of Judah into a universal kingdom of God.!_ With these hopes of a Messianic kingdom, that which Ewald rightly calls the innermost impulse of all.true religion rose with growing strength, and the hopes of immortality and resurrection received a. firmer and clearer development than before* —s_ In the Apocalyptic Book of Enoch, Book of Enos parts of which have been assigned to the time when, during the reign of John Hyrcanus, Demetrius II. was pursuing his career of con-. quest along the coast of Palestine, the Messianic hopes were very Clearly expressed.* The Messiah was made to 1. Bp. Westcott, Smith's Dict. of the Bible, vol. 1. art. ‘Daniel . 2. Ewald, History of Israel, vol. V., p. 305, English Translation. The Book of Enoch is possibly alluded to by St. Jude (vz. 14, 15), but it is an open question whether he derived his quotation from tradition or from writing. It is quoted in Barnabas (Ep. IV. 3, XVI. 5). Tertullian (De Cultu Feminarum 1. 3) mentions it as Scripture, “* though not received by some, nor admitted into the Jewish canon. ” It was known to St. Augustine (Civ. Dez xv. 23) ‘‘ Unde illa, quae sub ejus nomine proferuntur et continent istas de gigantibus fabulas, quod non habuerint homines patres, recte a prudentibus judicantur non ipsius esse credenda.” See also AZost. Const. vi. 16, where the forgeries under the names of Moses, Enoch, and Adam are condemned. The book was rediscovered in Aithiopic by Bruce the Abyssinian traveller in 1773. It has been frequently translated. A few Greek fragments are preserved by George Syncellus, and another copy was discovered in 1886 at Akhmin. The latest edition is by R. H. Charles, Oxford, 1893. Seealso Ewald, Hist. Zsrael, vol. V. p. 348. Enoch is now pronounced to be a composite work, the ground-work of which is assigned by most to the second century B.c., but some of the remainder belongs ta CH. 1.] THE PRIESTLY MONARCHY. 9 appear as both human and divine, predestined by God from all eternity. Great trials were to precede his coming. A resurrection of the dead was foretold, and the Son of Man was to appear on the throne of his majesty.! Without entering farther into the history or the literature of the second century before Christ it will be perceived that the Jews had been taught some truths essential to the establishment of a universal religion. They had learned that religious communities could be formed outside the Holy Land, they had formed the idea of a world-wide kingdom of God, they had grasped the doctrine of a resurrection, and in addition to this they had proved the power of martyrdom as a means of preserving and extending their faith. The course of history had yet to teach that which they afterwards learned with so much difficulty, namely that the king- dom of the Truth on be ean its character. ‘ ter the death of Judas the Maccabee, Secaayy oetricst, B.c. 161, his brother Jonathan continued el pocatien the struggle with Syria. The claims of 144-135, John Alexander Balas to the crown of the Hyreanus 135— Seleucidae gave to Jonathan an import- 108) yarstobulus ance of which he was not slow to avail ander Jannaeus himself. Alexander Balas, supported by ge aha the Romans, became king of Syria, and Ys Tiare his ally Jonathan was made high-priest.? It is probable that the ancient line of high-priests had already become extinct. From this time the royal and priestly powers in Israel were united in one person, and it must have seemed as if the ideal of the ancient Theocracy was about to be revived. But the priestly rule of the Asmoneans, far from being the precursor of the establishment of a religious empire, ended in the domination of the Herods and the extinction of the post-Christian times. Zmcyclopedia Biblica, art. * Apocalyptic Literature’, §§ 25, 26. Chaps. i.—xxxvi. are declared to be the oldest piece of Jewish literature that teaches the general resurrection of Israel, describes Sheol according to the conception that prevails in the N.T. as opposed to that of the O.T., or represents Gehenna as a place of final punishment. 46, § 27. fA Bishop Westcott, Jztrod. to Study of Gospels, ch, il. 2. I Macc, x. 20, 21. Bevan, Jerusalem under the High Priests, Sect. 111. 10 RELIGIOUS SECTS. (cH. 1. national independence. From the first the dynasty had within itself the seed of national ruin. Judas the Maccabee had been the first to make overtures to Rome,’ the alliance had been renewed by Jonathan’ and after- wards by Simon.’ Thus the royal power of the high- priests was fostered by the future destroyers of the Jewish people. But a more fatal danger arose from the factions es the Jews themselves. When the civil and religious government is identical, religious disputes are certain to distract a country. ‘Questions of faith notoriously produce the bitterest animosity, and a priest-king cannot fail to take part in controversy. The closing years of John Hyrcanus were distracted by the feuds between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and in the reign of Hyrcanus II. a dispute between that monarch and his brother Aristo- bulus led the Romans to interfere. The crafty Antipater and his still craftier son Herod saw their opportunity ; the Asmoneans were displaced, and Herod reigned as the vassal of Rome. The fall of the priest-kings ought to have shewn the Jews that to establish an earthly empire was for them a hopeless task, and without doubt during the govern- ment of Herod and the Romans many despaired of the coming of a conquering Messiah* The Law and tradition became once more the great consolation of Israel, and the factions in the state developed into she religious schools of thought. The origin of the term Sadducee:: is not known. The Mishna derives the name from Tsedugim (righteous ones). They are- said to be the followers of Zadok the disciple of Antigonus of Socho, and to have misinterpreted their master’s pre- cept, “Be not like servants who serve their Master for the sake of receiving a reward,” so far as to deny the life after death. This statement however rests on the authority of a certain R. Nathan, who wrote a commentary on a treatise of the Mishna called Aboth, and probably Parties in Ju- daism: Sadducees. 1. I Mace. viii. 2. I Mace. xii, I—4, 3. I Macc, xiv. 16—19. . 4. See Prof. Stanton’s few2sh and Christian Messiah. ex, 1.] SADDUCEES AND PHARISEES. II flourished about a.p. 1000.' Their leading tenets were a belief in free will and a rejection of the traditional interpretation of the Mosaic Law, together with a denial of the belief in a resurrection, and future rewards and punishments. The party was eminently aristocratic in its composition and in the policy it adopted. Josephus says that when the Sadducees became magistrates they addicted themselves to the notions of the Pharisees for fear of the people.2, The Sadducees represented the con- servative element in Judaism. The statesmen of the nation and the priestly aristocracy were fully alive to the danger of innovation. The result was that they were often intolerant and severe. It was a Sadducean high-priest that condemned Christ, and the Sadducees were the first to persecute the infant Church. _ Though the character of Sadducean Judaism is at first sight uninviting, it expresses one of the progressive tendencies of the age. ‘The restrictions of Mosaism made men desire freedom, and although the Sadducees looked to Greece corrupted by luxury and scepticism, rather than to the prophetic pictures of a spiritual Israel,* their attitude indicates the growth of a feeling which found its noblest expression in the phrase of St. James, “ The perfect law of liberty.’”® The very name of Pharisee has so odious a sound in the ears of a Christian that we are apt to misjudge the character of a great movement in Judaism which was not without effect on the diffusion of Christianity. Despite our Saviour’s well deserved denunciations of their hypocrisy, the Pharisaic party was the representative of a noble effort to reform Pharisees. 1. Hausrath, Mew Zest. Times, vol. 1., p. 136, Eng. Transl. 3 Josephus, Ami7g. XVIII. i. 43 XII. x. 6; Bell. Jud. 11. viii. 14. The popular notion that the Sadducees rejected all the Scriptures except the Pentateuch is due to a confusion between their tenets and those of the Samaritans. Epiphanius says they are an off-shoot of the Christian sect of the Dositheans! Szth’s Dict. Bible, art. ‘Sadducees’. The most important allusions to this sect in the New Test. are their denial of the resurrection (Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8), of angels (Acts xxiii. 8), their connexion with the priestly aristocracy at Jerusalem (Acts v. 17). They are not mentioned by St. John. 2. Jos. Amtig, XVIII. i. 4. 3. Acts iv. I. A 4. Bp. Westcott, Jtroduction to Study of the Gospels, ch. tt. 5. St. James i. 25. 12 JEWISH ASCETICS. [cH 1. Judaism. In some respects they resemble the English Puritans of the seventeenth century. Both paid the utmost regard to Scripture, both numbered in their ranks men of the most earnest piety, and in both an unduly scrupulous attention to matters of minor importance produced a large amount of hypocrisy. The hard legalising spirit, which in the Jewish sect led to the most binding form of ritualism the world has ever known, in the Christian Puritan took an opposite direction; but both in their strength and weakness the Puritan and Pharisee are nearly related.? The chief tenets of the sect resulted from their treatment of Scripture. The Pharisees held that the Law of Moses was supplemented by a vast oral tradition. This had a good and a bad side. To make it impossible to break the ordinances of Moses the most complicated rules were invented, and the tendency to place legal purity above morality was greatly fostered. On the other hand, the reverence for tradition marked a crisis in religious feeling. It wasa declaration that the Law had left something to be desired before it could be a living power in Israel. Pharisaism also struck a blow at the priesthood by placing the man learned in the Law of Moses above the descendant of Aaron, thus preparing Judaism for the abolition of the priestly system. More- over, although the Law of Moses says nothing about the duty of prayer or the doctrine of the resurrection, the Pharisees made each an important part of their system. Thus while the legalism of the Pharisee and the freedom of Christ’s teaching are utterly incompatible, we find many important points of contact between them; and the Pharisees in the Acts of the Apostles are represented as generally less disposed to persecute the Church than the Sadducees.? oe The object of the Sadducee was to ; conform himself to the world, that of the Pharisee to live in yet separated from it; but the Essene introduced a new principle destined to have a very powerful influence on the subsequent development of 1. But see Gritz, vol. 11., ch. i. for a description of the best side of Pharisaism. As judges the Pharisees inclined to the side of merey. 2. Acts v. 34 foll, Acts xxiii. 9. cH. 1.] PROSELYTISING JUDAISM. 13 Christianity. His ideal was to form a kingdom of God isolated from the world. He withdrew himself from all that was profane in order to be nearer to God. The Essene communities were distinguished, partly by an excess of Pharisaism, a morbid craving after moral purity, and partly by an admixture of foreign customs borrowed from the religions of the East. ‘The Essenes avoided marriage, the slaughter of animals, and animal food; they lived in communities, and their lives were regulated by ascetic discipline. Strict Jews in all that regarded ceremonial purity, they nevertheless refused to take part in the Temple worship because beasts were slain there in the sacrifices. The multiplication of religious parties sufficiently shews the activity of Judaism at this period. There was a constant unrest, an expectation of a great change. St. Luke tells us how saintly minds were constantly looking for the consolation of Israel and the coming of the kingdom of God.? The Gentiles: seem to have also recognised something of the divine mission of Israel. Contrary to both their ancient and modern custom, the Jews had become energetic missionaries, especially among women. Our Lord says that the Pharisees ‘‘ compassed sea and land to make one proselyte’’,® and the constant mention of the persons who worshipped God (ceSouevor) in the Acts of the Apostles shews how numerous they must have been in the great cities. The heathen were alternately attracted by the Judaism in the time of our Lord. Proselytes. I. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus Am/zg. XVIII. i. 5, where he describes their doctrines and says they numbered about 4000; and in Bell, Jud. i. viii. 3—13 there is a full account of the sect. Philo alludes to them (see F. C. Conybeare’s edition of the Treatise De Vita Contemplativa, Oxford, 1895). Pliny (¥. A. v. 15—17) describes their communities. The chief early Christian writers who allude to the Essenes are Hegesippus in Eusebius 7. &. iv. 22, as one of the seven Jewish sects, and Hippolytus, Maer. Ix. 13—22 3; see Bishop Lightfoot’s Excursus on the Essenes in his Commentary on the Ep. to the Colossians. 2. St. Luke ii. 25, 38. 3. St. Matth. xxiii. 15. 4 Acts xiii, 43, 50; xvii. 4. Mr. Conybeare in his Excursus on the authorship of Philo’s De Vita Contemp/ativa, p. 260, says ‘‘Of Philo’s writings a large number have a missionary aim,” and he quotes p. 259 a passage from the treatise on Repentance in which Philo speaks of converts as a Christian might have done a century later. 14 THE WORK OF ROME. [cH. 1 loftiness of the Jewish creed and repelled by the nation itself, and it is evident that Judaism per se could not have become the religion of the world: for a Gentile to accept the faith of Israel was one thing; but it was a different thing for him to become a Jew. The history of Christianity shews how all that was best in Judaism together with far nobler truths than Israel had known were presented to the world. Srp The Heathen The heathen world had been prepared world. for the reception of a universal religion stares tal by two important forces supplied by oman ew Greece and Rome. One of the greatest debts posterity owes to the Greeks is that they first taught mankind how to think. The bold questions of the Greek philosophy made men enquire into the truth of that which custom had taught them. Thus at the time of our Lord, when the Roman empire had been Hellenised, a spirit of enquiry was abroad ready to give new doctrines a hearing. The scornful words of the philosophers at Athens about St. Paul shew at any rate that men were at least prepared to listen, The work of Rome was to unite and organize the world, to destroy nationalities, and to improve communi- cation. Under her rule men began to move freely from place to place, and the Christian preacher went from town to town in the track of the merchant. x. Acts xvii. 18—20, CHAPTER. II, THE TIMES OF THE CHRIST. WHATEVER opinions men may hold of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, it must be universally admitted that His life is the most important epoch in history. This must however in a work like the present be touched upon with the greatest possible brevity, and in this chapter only a very few points can be so much as hinted at. Our main object must be to speak of the times of the Messiah as illustrating the establishment of the Christian Church. The one aspect of the Saviour’s work which we must keep before us is that of the Founder of a society, and it will first be necessary to state clearly the popular idea upon which Christ based His Church. It was that of a Kingdom of the Heavens,} an ideal Hebrew State in which the hope of Israel was to be realised. This hope animated the nation more strongly as its earthly prospect became darker. Men turned from the world with its painful realities to con- template a state of things which could only exist ina dim and distant future ; and the condition of the Jewish community in Palestine amply justified its dissatisfaction with the existing position of affairs. To form any idea of, Jewish thought in the days of our Lord’s ministry it is necessary to bear in mind the historical events of the preceding epoch, the most 1. Matth, iv. 17, x. 7, xiii. 24—53. See also Mark i. 14, 15, ix. 13 Luke iv. 43, ix. 2, 27, xiii. 29, xvi. 16, xvii. 20, xix. 11, xxi. 31; Acts i. 3. 16 THE RISE OF HEROD. (CH. IL, prominent of which are the fall of the Asmonean dynasty and the rise of Herod.’ : When John Hyrcanus conquered the Antipat . to Cor., ch. 5, Lightfoot’s Transl. Neander, Planting of Christianity, vol. I.) Pp. 389 Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 212. " Euseb. Wy 2 #., Ul. 23. Whe . @ CHAPTER IV. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT. Tue Christian society grew silently, unnoticed at first by the rulers of mankind. Of the emperors, statesmen, lawyers, and men of letters who influenced public affairs after the coming of Jesus Christ, hardly one so much as recognised the existence of a body of men whose views were destined to work the greatest revolution in human life and thought that the world has ever known. ‘Tacitus, who was a boy when St. Paul was a prisoner at Rome and who wrote his Annals during the reign of Trajan, does not trouble to enquire whether those whom “the vulgar call Christians”’ were criminals or not.1_ Suetonius dismisses the subject with a few words of disparagement,? and Dio Cassius who wrote at a much later date evidently deems it below the dignity of history.® In spite, however, of the lofty in- oka [let difference of the pagan historians, the Wreeeess. influence of the Church made itself felt | at a very early period in the very palace of the Caesars. Nothing is more striking in the history of the early Christian Church in Rome than the strong 1. Tac., Aun. xv. 44. ‘‘ Quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat.” . 2. Suet., Mero 16. ‘‘Superstitio nova et malefica.” For the contempt for Christianity of the heathen writers of the first and second centuries see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xv. 44 ROMAN IDEA OF RELIGION, (CH. IV. support it received from the familia of the Emperors. “They of Caesar’s household” are the only Roman Christians who salute the Philippian church! in St. Paul’s epistle. St. Clement of Rome was probably a dependent of the Flavian family,? one of whom, Flavius AD. 95. Clemens, suffered, possibly as a Christian,® under the tyrant Domitian. Even in the time of Diocletian, a.p. 303, the imperial palace was a stronghold of Christianity, and that emperor commenced his persecution by compelling his wife and daughter to defile* their baptismal robes by sacrificing to the gods. DSH The presence of Christians in the persecution of the palace of the Emperors is a proof that aspen Dene the Roman government was naturally overnmen* disposed to extend a certain amount of toleration to the Church, for by the behaviour of the Christian slaves and dependents on festivals and similar occasions it must have been evident that they professed the Faith; nor need this toleration cause wonder if we consider how many religious rights must have been practised in the vast concourse of men of all nationalities which composed the household of a Caesar. Indeed anyone unacquainted with the precise attitude of the Roman magistracy towards religion may marvel at the undoubted severity with which the Christians were from time to time treated. To understand the persecutions of the primitive Church it is necessary to divest the mind of all modern ideas of religion. To us, religion appears to be the highest duty of every man, and his relation to God a matter of primary importance. To a Roman legislator it was quite otherwise. The first duty of a man was to the State, and religious duties were subordinated to civil obligations. Hence persecution in modern days has had for its avowed object the bringing of a misguided individual into a proper relationship with his God, whilst that of the Roman 1:° Phi, 22. . 2. Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 259. Ph2lippzans, p. 20. 3. He was accused of Judaism and atheism. Flavia Domitilla, his wife, was banished for the same offence. Suetonius, Dosuzt. ch. 183 Dio Cassius, Ixvii. 14. Lact., Mort. Per. 15, ‘‘sacrificio pollui coegit.” This implies that these ladies were baptized, or at the least, catechumens. CH. IvV.]} RELIGIONS RECOGNISED BY LAW. 45 government aimed at compelling him to return to his duty to the Republic. This helps to account alike for the absence of bigotry and for the severity which characterised the Roman officials in their dealings with the Christians. The State, in fact, claimed the right to decide what gods might be worshipped, and although it did not trouble itself about a man’s private opinions, it prescribed the objects of public adoration, and from time to time insisted on due reverence being paid to them. Cicero lays it down as a legal maxim that no one ought to have gods apart from the State, and that new and foreign gods should not be worshipped unless they had been publicly acknowledged.! Till therefore the religion of the Christians had received legal recognition, it was not lawful to practise it, and those who did so became liable to pains and penalties: according to Tertullian, the heathen taunted the Christians with the words ‘ non licet esse vos, —the law does not allow of your existence. But it may be asked why the Christian Church did not seek to obtain legal recognition. The Jews had done so, and the Christian apologists demanded no more than toleration from the State. The obstacle lay in the Roman idea that religion was a matter of race rather than of conviction. ‘ The Jews” says Celsus “are not to be blamed, because each man ought to live according to the custom of his country; but the Christians have forsaken their national rites* for the doctrine of Christ.” A religion that was thus outside the law was sure to be exposed to the attacks of both private malice and popular frenzy. Wealthy members of the Church were especially liable to be accused by the delators or spies, employed by the suspicious policy of the Emperors, and, as Trajan hints in his reply to Pliny’s letter about the Christians, the charge might easily be made anonymously.® A Christian before the Edict of Milan was in a position somewhat resembling that of a Popish recusant in 1, ‘* Nisi publice adscitos.” Cicero, Leg. 11. 8. 2. “Sra mdrpia Karadirdvras Kal ovx &v Te Tuvyxdvovres EOvos ws of Tovdato.” Origen c. Celsum v.25. Quoted by Neander, vol. I., p. 123, Eng. Transl. 3. ‘*Sine auctore libelli.” (C. Plinii et Trajani Zpistu/ae, 97. 46 DANGER IN PROFESSING CHRISTIANITY, [cu. Iv. England in the 18th century, liable to laws which might at any moment be put in force against him. The early Church moreover had in the Jews ever watchful enemies, ready at all times to set the law in motion against her children? The unreasoning populace was easily excited, especially in times of public calamities, which were ascribed to the ‘atheism’ of the Christians. Tertullian in a well-known passage says that any affliction caused the mob to raise the cry “ Christianos ad leonem!"’.8 ‘The public burdens imposed by the State occasionally exposed the wealthier Christians to per- secution. An example of this is found in the Acts of the Council of Elvira. If a baptized Christian held the office of Flamen he was expected to provide the sacrifices and sacred games, and, as this was a function hereditary in certain families, the duties could not be avoided. The second, third, and fourth canons of the Council decide the penalties to be imposed on those who from fear of persecution had either paid a sum of money, or taken an active part in these idolatrous practices. In the latter case all hope of re-entering the Christian Church was sternly interdicted.* barons forthe We may well ask how it was that comparativelytol- the government did not crush the Church troktcanGareea. at once,—why if our religion was illegal ment towards it was not immediately stamped out by Christianity. authority. Origen in his reply to Celsus rightly attributes the preservation of the early Church 1. Professor Ramsay in his Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, draws a parallel between the Christians under Nero and the Romanists in England during the ‘ Popish Plot’ of 1679. ‘‘ The action of the English law courts and people...... in brutality, injustice and unreasoning cruelty, furnishes a fit parallel to the Neronian trials.” Both in Rome and England this cruelty of the government occasioned a revulsion of feeling. 2. The Jews were especially active in the martyrdom of St. Polycarp. Renan (L’Antichriste) suggests that Nero was induced to select the Christians as victims by the intrigues of the Jewish courtiers about his person. See also Farrar, Harly Days of Christianity, ch. iv. Clement Ee Rome says that the Christians suffered through jealousy. Ep. to Cor. ch. 5. | 3. Apol. 40. ‘*Si Tiberis ascendit in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva, si coelum stetit, si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim Christianos ad leonem.” _ 4 Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. 1. p. 138, English Translation. Bingham, du. Christzan Church, xvi. 6. 4. CH. Iv. ] REASON FOR TOLERATION, 47 to the providence of God, and remarks that but a few at wide intervals had suffered for the Faith. But though Christians naturally recognise God’s special providence in the protection of His Church, we may also be permitted to examine what purely natural causes contributed to secure this comparative immunity. It is seldom that a society which, though illegal, does not disturb the tranquillity of the State, or interfere with the collection of the revenue, is subject to continuous molestation. Occasionally, over-conscientious magis- trates may put the laws in force, but wise or negligent rulers are content to leave them in abeyance or even to allow them to be evaded. Nor was a military despotism like that of the Roman empire likely to enquire very deeply into actions, on which no possible suspicion of treason could rest. No doubt the Christian Church was regarded, by superficial observers lke (in this instance) Tacitus, as an immoral society: but most of the emperors had to consider primarily how to keep the army in good humour, and had little time to regulate the religion or morality of their subjects. Nor should it be forgotten that many Christians be- longed to a class which no wise government is willing to annoy. The taunt of Celsus and other opponents. of the Faith was that it was a religion of women and slaves, but nevertheless it seems to have taken a strong hold on the commercial classes, and on professional men,—in a word, on the chief taxpayers of the State.” Added to this there was the extreme disorganization of the Roman empire from the death of Marcus Aurelius, A.D. 180, to the accession of Diocletian, a.p. 283. As during this period there were no less than twenty-four changes of government, and thirty-five emperors, no. settled policy towards the Church was possible or even conceivable. I. Origen, ¢. Celsum, 111. 8. ddlyou kar& Katpods Kal ofddpa evapid- pyro vrep THs Xpioriavav OeoceBelas TeOvijkaccy. 2. See Milman, Lat. Christianity, p. 209, note; Tertullian, 4fo/. 37; and Conybeare’s Bampton Lectures, 345: ‘‘It seems unquestionable that the strength of Christianity lay in the middle, perhaps in the mercantile classes.” ‘Tertullian is a good example of the professional men who embraced our Faith. 48 TIBERIUS AND CAIUS. (CH. IV. a The three great divisions into which Bey aun ieee the history of the Empire falls from the policytowardsthe accession of Augustus to that of Diocletian, Capea. almost coincide with the centuries of our era. The first may be said to terminate with the death of Domitian, a.pD. 96; the second with that of Commodus, A.D. 192: and the third with that of Numerian, A.D. 283. In the first of these periods the Church had chiefly to dread the personal fears or jealousy of a tyrant; in the second, the operation of laws, generally put into force by the mistaken policy of good rulers; whilst during the last, the Christians were alternately ignored, caressed — or persecuted, according to the caprice of the successful soldier who for the time held the empire. aa According to Tertullian, Tiberius con- Reng rie: sulted the Senate on the propriety of admitting Christ into the Pantheon of Roman divinities. The Senate rejected the Emperor’s proposal. But Caesar remained unaltered in his view of the case and threatened the accusers of the Christians with penalties.? Passing over the reigns of Caius, in which the Jews resisted the Emperor’s blasphemous attempt to erect a statue of himself in their Temple, and of Claudius, whose edict, as Suetonius tells us, drove the Jews from Rome? for their tumults about the Christ,? we come to definite facts in connexion with the Christian Church in > the time of Nero. 1. Tertullian, 4fof, 5. * Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Chris- tianum in saeculum introivit, annuntiatum sibi ex Syria Palaestina, quod illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverat, detulit ad senatum cum praeroga- tiva suffragii sui, Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit ; Caesar in sententia mansit, comminatus periculum accusatoribus Christianorum.” In ch. 21, he says :—‘* Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et ipse jam pro sua conscientia Christianus, Caesari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit.”’ Justin Martyr twice speaks in his Apology of the records of what was done under Pontius Pilate. (Apol. 45, 63.) [Stanton, Zhe Gospels as Historical Documents, part 1.) He says nothing of these records being sent to Tiberius, Eusebius (11. 2) merely translates Tertullian. Bishop Kaye (Zertud/ian, p. 110) discusses the fact mentioned by Tertullian. 2. Acts xviii. 2. 3. Suet., Claud. 25. ‘Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.” Thisisa very vague statement and may be due to Suetonius confusing what he had heard about Christ in his day with what happened in the time of Claudius. CH. 1v.} LEGEND OF ST. PAUL AND THECLA. 49 We possess an account of a proceeding yan against Christians, which is perhaps the Thecla. earliest on record, in the very strange romance of St. Paul and Thecla. The latter was a noble maiden of Iconium who was con- verted by hearing the Apostle in his second missionary tour preach as she sat at a window of her mother’s house. The conversion of Thecla caused the imprisonment of St. Paul, who was visited by Thecla in his dungeon, the damsel having bribed the jailor with her ornaments and silver mirror. Paul was beaten and driven from the city; and Thecla after various adventures appears at Antioch, where Alexander the high priest of Syria offered her insulting proofs of admiration, though she told him she was a stranger, who had vowed chastity to God. Thecla finding her protests futile attacked Alexander and tore the crown from him. For this she was arrested and condemned to die as guilty of sacrilege. A queen named Tryphaena received Thecla into her house after her condemnation on promising to produce her that she might undergo her sentence. Thecla was brought into the amphitheatre with no garment save the cincture’ which the Roman law allowed condemned criminals. The people, especially the women, we are told, greatly sympathised with her. The accusation over Thecla’s head was the word SACRILEGA, and she stood with her arms extended in the form of a cross. A series of miracles rescued Thecla on this occasion from death. Absurd as parts of the story are, the Acts of Paul and Thecla contain some undoubted traces of genuine antiquity. Queen Tryphaena is a personage who was well known in Asia Minor in the first century. Thecla’s condemnation— not for Christianity but for sacrilege—together with the fact that the people sympathised with her in her punishment, is an evidence of an early date, and a very convincing argument for the antiquity of the story is the fact that Thecla was able by the use of her needle (payraca) to change the appearance of her dress when she wished to pass as a boy. This could D 50 THE NERONIAN PERSECUTION, (CH. EV. more easily have been done in the first century of our era than later.’ Nero. The Neronian persecution, during which A.D. 54-68. probably both St. Peter and St. Paul suffered martyrdom, furnishes a good illustration of the general policy of the Government towards the Church, which had been allowed to grow in obscurity, and was only attacked by the Emperor when it was convenient for him to attract public indignation away from himself. It is possible that the trial of St. Paul may have called Nero’s attention to the fact of the existence of the Christians in Rome. The vast multitude who suffered? is a heathen testimony both to the rapid increase of the Church, and to the severity of the persecution. Nero lent his gardens for the purpose of exhibiting the tortures of the wretched victims, and at night he il- luminated his grounds by the flames of the burning Christians. The cruelty of these tortures and the flagrant injustice with which the Christians were treated caused, we may infer, a reaction in their favour, and the fact that many of them had been Nero’s victims may have saved them from molestation after the tyrant’s death. The reign of Nero is the most important crisis in the history of the Church in the first century, and it is also the key to many difficulties in the New Testa- ment. There can be no stronger contrast than the language employed by St. Peter and St. Paul on the subject of the duty of Christians to obey the Roman Government and the abhorrence with which St. John in the Revelation speaks of the Empire.t This is only to be accounted for by the fact that a terrible outbreak of persecution had intervened between the last of the 1. Ramsay’s chapter (xv1.) on the Acts of Paul and Thecla, in his Church and the Roman Empire. Le Blant, Actes et Martyres. Lipsius has published an edition of the text. 2. Tacitus, dun. xv. 44. I cannot but believe that the discovery of a ‘secret society’ like the Christians must have been a godsend to the government at this time. The Italians have a genius for secret combina- tion : witness the power of the Cardonarz and the Aafia in recent times. 3. Tacitus, Amn. Xv. 44. ‘‘ Aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies in usum nocturni luminis urerentur.” 4. Rev. xvii. 9 foll. CH. Iv.] ABHORRENCE OF IDOLATRY. 51 Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse. St. Paul at least had no cause to feel any bitterness against the Roman rule—Caesar was to him the supreme embodiment of justice on earth, to whom he was able to appeal when no other judge had the courage to protect him.! It is conceivable that St. John had actually witnessed the persecution of the Christians at Rome, and had perhaps himself been in great danger.? In this case it is not unnatural that the Apostle of the Gentiles should speak of the Roman Empire as the restraining influence in the world,® and that St. John should rejoice at the prospect of the fall of the Babylon of his day the abominable city of Rome which was drunk with the blood of the saints.* From Nero’s persecution also dates the almost fanatical hatred with which the Christians regarded idolatry. In St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians a singular absence of invectives against worshipping idols is noticeable, especially as the Epistle treats at some length of the question of eating meats offered to idols. Before, however, the Canon of the New Testament had closed, this contemptuous silence on the subject of images gave way to a furious and more than Jewish hatred of idolatry,*° and it became a point of honour among Christians to embrace the opportunity of martyrdom sooner than risk the least contamination from the worship of heathen gods. This seems properly attributable to the effect of the Neronian persecution. nt The reign of Vespasian was unsullied apomitian_ by any public persecution, as this ruthless conqueror of the Jews left the Christians in tranquillity.’ Suetonius says that Vespasian never took pleasure in anyone’s death, and used to be moved to tears even when criminals were deservedly executed. It has been supposed that this refers to the sufferings of people like the Christians, whose punishment Vespasian ft, ACE xxv. 10, UI: 2. The story of St. J hase being plunged into boiling oil is in Ter- tullian, Praescrip. ch. 36. Beweit) lL hess. ii, 6: 4. Rev. xvii. 6. 5. I Cor, viii. passim. 6. Rev. ii. 20. y- Tert. Apol. 5. ‘‘Judaeorum debellator.” 52 FLAVIUS CLEMENS, | (CH. Iv. felt bound to accept, while he regretted it.1 The rigid enforcement of the tax called the fiscus Judaicus on all Jews by this emperor may however have revealed how numerous the Christians were, and have resulted in several executions. The abominable regime of informers which flourished under the patronage of Domitian was felt by the Church. A charge of ‘atheism’ might easily be magnified into one of treason, and the greed and suspicion of the Emperor combined to strengthen his determination to visit those accused of Christianity with the penalty of death.? If, as is not improbable, St. Clement’s first epistle was written during the reign of this emperor, the persecutions endured by the Christians at the time are described as sudden and repeated.? Bp. Lightfoot in his note on this passage remarks that “* Domi- tian made use of legal forms and arraigned the Christians from time to time on various paltry charges.” The most important victim to the suspicious jealousy of Domitian was Flavius Clemens, the Emperor’s cousin- german and his colleague in the consulship, who was suddenly accused of atheism and Jewish superstition. His wife Flavia Domitilla was banished to an island.* 1. Ramsay, p. 257. I am afraid I cannot read this meaning into Suetonius’ words. The chapter (Xv.) in which they occur begins with the history of Vespasian’s treatment of Helvidius Priscus, who had behaved to the Emperor with the utmost discourtesy. Vespasian condemned him, but changed his mind and countermanded the order when too late, The historian concludes with the remark that the Emperor was greatly moved ~ (inlacrimavit atque ingemuit) even when men were justly executed, Pro- fessor Ramsay says “‘ it is inconceivable that Vespasian, a Roman, a soldier ef long experience in the bloody wars of Britain and Judaea, ‘ wept’ and groaned at every ‘ merited’ execution.” It is possible however that as a general Vespasian may have regarded the massacre of Celtic barbarians and Jewish fanatics in war time with callous indifference, and yet have shewn extreme sensitiveness at the sight of the execution of criminals in time of eace. F 2. See Neander, Hist. Church, vol. 1. p. 132. 3. Lp. to Corinthians, ch. i. 6:4 Tas ai@udtous kai émaddAnAous ‘yevo- pévas Nutv cuugopds. Yet we hear no complaints of apostasy. Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church. Domitian posed as a strict reformer of religion. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 54. 4. Eusebius (4. 2. 111. 18) calls her his niece, and Bp. Lightfoot (PAzlippians, p.22sq.) concludes that there were two ladies of this name who suffered for their Christianity. Dion Cassius (lxvii. 44) says :—émrnvéxOn 52 duoty éyxAnua abedrnros Up Fs Kal dda els ra Tay lovdalwy 20n eFoxéd- Aovres toddol KaredixdoOnoav Kal of wéev arébavoy ol 5& Ta¥ your otciav éorep7Onoay. Prof. Ramsay gives some valuable suggestions as to Dion CH. Iv.] THE DESPOSYNI. 53 There is a story related by Hegesippus which though it has decidedly fabulous air! shews the watchfully sus- picious nature of the tyrant. Hearing that some of David’s descendants were alive in the persons of the grandsons of Jude the Lord’s brother, Domitian ordered them to be brought to Rome and questioned them as to their lineage. ‘lhey said that though really descendants of David, they were poor farmers working on a small property they owned in Palestine. In proof of this statement they showed their hands hardened with toil, and the Emperor dismissed them with contempt, As they asserted that the kingdom of Christ was spiritual and not temporal, the Emperor ordered the persecution of the Christians to cease.? i Rat ae After the death of Domitian the empire dete ned fell into the hands of a succession of good Roman and able rulers. With the exception of Emperors. Nerva they each reigned for some years, and their administrations secured a period of prosperity, marked by the very rapid growth and progress of the Christian Church. It was inevitable that the Church and the Empire should now from time to time come into conflict with one another, and we must attribute to the watchful providence of God the fact that this most critical period of the Church’s existence coincided with the wise and moderate administrations of four successive emperors. Hitherto the law had been strained to per- secute the Christians at the caprice of the worst rulers, but henceforth all irregular attacks on the Church were checked by the prudence of emperors, who in their mistaken zeal for justice resolved to substitute for popular violence the regular process of the laws, and to specify the profession of Christianity as unlawful.® Cassius’s reasons for saying that they suffered for Judaism. Either he gives the charge that was brought at the time, or he in conformity with the fashion of his age ignores Christianity. Op. c7z¢. p. 263. For the heroism displayed by women in the darkest days of Caesarian despotism, see Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p..47. 1. Milman, Aistory of Christianity, vol. I1., p. 10. 2. Hegesippus, quoted in Euseb., &. &. 111. 20. Tertullian (Afo/. 5) confirms the statement that Domitian stopped a persecution. The brethren of our Lord were called the Desposyntz. 3. It is a disputed question whether the reply of Trajan to Pliny inaugurated a system of persecution by law or modified the rigour of the 54 WAS TRAJAN A PERSECUTOR? [CH. IV, Rao It is difficult to decide from the testi- AD. $8117, mony of the Fathers whether Trajan was the friend or foe of the Christian Church. As a rule they are favourable in their view of his reign. Even Tertullian,} who severely criticises his rescript in answer to Pliny’s famous letter, alludes to the laws against the Christians quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus est. Melito of Sardis,? an earlier Apologist, in his address to Marcus Aurelius evidently includes Trajan among the good emperors who protected the Church. “Thy pious fathers” he tells the Emperor “ often set right the ignorance (of the adversaries of the Christians), blaming those who dared to devise any new evil against us often in repeated rescripts. Among whom? thy grand- father Hadrian with many others also appears, writing to Fundanus the proconsul ruling in Asia.” Eusebius says that the prosecutions during this period were rare and widely distributed,t and in later times Trajan is supposed to have been allowed to enter heaven owing to the prayer of Pope St. Gregory the Great.® It is notice- able however that the Apologists always asserted that the good emperors favoured the Christians and that those who persecuted them were bad men who generally came to bad ends. The facts are rather against Trajan, as during his reign Pliny wrote his well-known letter to the Emperor, and Ignatius was martyred. iste The younger Pliny, proconsul of pie area ‘© Bithynia a.p. 110, finding that the Christ- ians were very numerous in this province, wrote a letter to the Emperor asking his advice as to the former procedure. Prof. Ramsay says ‘‘ The real importance of the letter to Pliny is very different. It marks the end of the old system of uncom- promising hostility.” 1. Apology, 5. . 2. Apud Euseb., Hest. Eccl, tv. 26. 3. év ols must include Trajan. See Lightfoot’s Afostolie Fathers, vol. I. 4. Hist. Eccl. Wl. 32. pepexws kal cara wodes. 5. This legend is very fully discussed by Bp. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 11. vol. 1. p. 6. It was a favourite story in the middle ages, and is alluded to by Dante, Paradiso xx. 44 sq., 106 sq. St. Thomas Aquinas ingeniously attempts to solve the question of how an unbaptized heathen could have been saved. Baronius (sub anno 604) refutes the story, CH.IVv.] PLINY ASKS TRAJAN’S ADVICE. S5 method of dealing with an illegal association like the Church ;/ the chief points of which are as follows :— Pliny says that according to his custom he refers any difficulty he has to Trajan and desires his advice. As he had had no previous experience of the judicial enquiries about the Christians he does not know how he should proceed. Up to the present time he examined some who had been brought before him whether they were Christians, on their confession he threatened them, and if they persisted he condemned them to death. For as he remarks with true Roman contempt, ‘ pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy ought at any rate to be punished.’ A few who were Roman citizens and had fallen into this madness® Pliny sent to Rome. An anonymous information had been laid containing the names of many supposed Christians. Pliny summoned these and made them offer sacrifice and curse Christ, which he remarks real Christians can never be forced to do. A few said that they had been Christians, but had left the Church some as long ago as twenty years; they also declared that the Christians were accustomed to meet on a particular day before dawn and to sing an antiphonal hymn to Christ as though to a god.® They also, says Pliny, bound themselves by an oath (sacramento) to abstain from crime and to behave honestly. By this the baptismal oath is evidently meant, which Pliny, not unnaturally, misunderstood, considering that it was administered not once but frequently to the same persons. After this the assembly broke up and did not meet again till the evening, when they partook of a common meal, apparently the Christian ayamrn. This however they at once consented to abandon in obedience 1. LPlinti et Trajant Epistulae 96,97. For these letters with notes see Lightfoot, of. c#t.. vol. 1., p. 50. 2. Pliny was praetor A.D. 93 or 94. He knew that Christians had been previously tried, though he himself never assisted at such a trial. 3. Plinit et Trajant Eptstulae. 96, 4: ‘‘ similis amentiae.” 4. 1/6. 5: *‘Propositus est libellus sine auctore, multorum nomina continens.” Jb. 7: ‘*carmenque Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem.” 6. The Christian baptismal vow of renunciation seems to have been taken from the Commandments: ‘‘ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent” &c. 6. 7. 56 SUPERSTITIO ‘PRAVA ET IMMODICA’. (cH. Iv. to the imperial edict about clubs.* Being determined to ascertain the whole truth, Pliny tortured two female slaves, termed by the Christians ministvae or deaconesses, but found that the religion was nothing worse than a base and degrading superstition. He admits, however, that a vast number of people were in danger of being accused of Christianity, and that the temples had been almost abandoned, a sure sign that the new religion had the effect of creating scepticism as to the efficacy of the heathen rites.2, Nevertheless he had caused many to return to the worship of the gods by his salutary severity, and is of opinion that giving opportunities for expressing regret at having been Christians is both a wise and merciful policy. The great importance of this letter justifies a full abstract of its contents, although in the present instance we are only concerned with the attitude of the Roman government towards the Christians. The most notice- able feature it presents is the total absence of intolerant fanaticism. Although the new superstition seems in Pliny’s eyes to be “ prava et immodica®”’ he has no desire to proceed with unnecessary severity. Equally con- spicuous is the fact that it was illegal to profess Christianity, even though no special edict had been issued against it, and that once the Christians ceased to be identified with a body like the Synagogue, which was recognised by law, they became liable to prosecution. Most creditable is it to Pliny’s sense of justice that he refused to accept the popular charges of abominable practices, even in the case of an unlawful association, without full investigation by all means that lay within his power. Lastly it may be observed that the silence of the Christian writers on the subject of a persecution so 1. The abandonment of the dydan shews that it could not have been the Eucharist: cf. the remark of the martyr Felix; ‘‘As if a Christian could live without the Lord’s ordinance ! knowest thou not, Satan, that a Chris- tian’s whole being is in the sacrament?” Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p- 151. 2. Plinii et Trajani Epistulae, 96, 9: ‘* contagio.” 3. Professor Ramsay explains these words: ‘‘It was a suferstitio (in other words a non-Roman worship of non-Roman Gods), in the first place a degrading system (frava) and in the second destructive of that reasonable course of life which becomes the loyal citizen (z#zmodica).” CH. IV. TRAJAN ANSWERS PLINY. 57 evidently severe as that in Bithynia, is in itself a refutation of the malignant assertion that in speaking of their persecutions the Christians forgot nothing and magnified everything.} The answer that Trajan _ returned to Pliny’s letter shews the statesmanlike moderation of that emperor. His policy was to put down all clubs and associations, as he considered that they might easily become centres of political disaffection.? The description Pliny had given him of the Christian society was sufficient to convince him that it bore some resemblance to a hetaivia or club, and this was enough to prejudice it in his eyes. As however the members of the Church appeared to Pliny to be mere harmless fanatics, though belonging to an illegal society, the Emperor had no desire to treat them with undue severity. In spite of the satirical comment of Tertullian,® Trajan shewed a desire to act as mercifully as possible, consistently with his policy of suppressing all secret societies in the empire. In his reply to Pliny he approved his action in the matter of the Christians, forbade that they should be sought for, but if they were accused and found guilty they were to be punished, if they denied that they were Christians they were to prove the fact by supplicating the gods. As for the anonymous accusations alluded to by Pliny, they were to be treated with the contempt they deserve; for says Trajan nobly, ‘they are the worst possible precedent and unworthy of our age.’¢ Trajan’s reply. The martyrdom of Ignatius with its attendant circumstances is involved in obscurity. We are entirely ignorant of Martyrdom of Ignatius. 1. See Lightfoot, Azostolic Fathers, Part 11., vol. i., p. 16. 2. See the letters of Pliny and Trajan quoted by Bp. Lightfoot, of. cit., p. 19. Trajan will not even permit a guild of fire-men. 3. Tert. Apfo/. 2. ‘‘ Osententiam necessitate confusam ! Negat inqui- rendos ut innocentes et mandat puniendos ut nocentes.”’ 4. Plinit et Trajani Epistulae, 97. ‘*‘ Nam et pessimi exempli nec nostri saeculi est.” Prof. Ramsay denies that Trajan regarded the Christian Church asan unlawful guild. The Christians gave up the evening meal which made them a soda/ztas. ‘* The fact is one of the utmost consequence. It shews that the Christian communities were quite alive to the necessity of acting according to law and of using the forms of law to screen themselves as far as was consistent with their principles.” p. 219—220. 58 IGNATIUS AND THE EMPIRE. (CH. IV, the events which led to his trial and condemnation. The light of history only shines on him when he has received sentence of death and is on his way to Rome to be exposed in the amphitheatre to the wild beasts. On his journey he received numerous visits from his friends and was allowed to send letters to the different churches, and to Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, the disciple of St. John; he even was able to despatch a letter to the Roman Christians, imploring them ‘not to rob him of the glory of martyrdom by their intercessions.! A tone of passionate exultation at the prospect of his sufferings is audible throughout the letters, in marked contrast to the calm utterances of the writers in the New Testament when they anticipated the trial of a martyr’s death. The Ignatian Letters breathe a spirit of uncompromising hostility to the Roman empire, which reminds us of the Apocalypse. The world (cooyos) is used in the Johannine sense as the human order of affairs which is in irre- concileable hostility to the Church. All compromise with the powers that be is unworthy of the spirit of Christianity. ‘‘The work” says Ignatius to the Romans “is not of persuasiveness, but Christianity is a thing of might when it is hated by the world.”* Although the account of the trial before Trajan exists only in the doubtful Acts of the Martyrdom, it is supposed that the Emperor was at this time preparing for his invasion of the East and that the conduct of the Jews, who revolted in the reign of Hadrian, had made him extremely suspicious. In spite of Ignatius’ vehement denunciations of the Jews, the Emperor may have confused Christianity with Judaism, and the martyrdom of Symeon son of Cleopas, the second bishop of Jerusalem,* may have been due to the same cause.° 1. The letter to the Romans is interesting as shewing both the position of influence which that Church possessed even at that time, and the spirit which animated the Christian martyrs. 2. Ign. Rom. 4. cirds elut Oeod, kal 8’ dddvTwv Onplwy adjPopuat, tva KaBapos Apros evpeOS [rod Xpiorod]. pwadrov Kodaxevoare Ta Onpla twa po Tados yévwrrat......... Atravedoare Tov Xprordv brép Ewov, tva Oia Tay épydvwv tovTwv Oeod Ovola evpedd. 3. Romans, 3. Ramsay, p. 314. 4." Museb. Akin. 32. 5: See Dean Milman’s Hist. of Chréstiantty, vol. I1., p. 101. CH. IV.] HADRIAN’S RESCRIPT. 59 Hadctan Under Hadrian the Christians began AD. 117-138, to make themselves known to the heathen world by the Apologies which they ad- dressed to the Emperor. The revolt of the Jews under Barcochab made it necessary for the Christians to remove all misapprehensions as to their relations with Judaism. Eusebius says that the Jews of Cyrene in the eighteenth year of Trajan (a.p. 115) had caused very serious trouble, and there had also been disturbances in Alexandria and elsewhere which were put down with great severity.} It was no doubt partly on this account that Quadratus and Aristides addressed their Apologies for the Christian faith to Hadrian when he was admitted to the Eleusinian mysteries at Athens? in A.p. 133. The Emperor himself recognised the injustice of punishing the Christians for the sake of gratifying popular caprice, and in reply to the representations of Serennius Granianus proconsul of Asia on this subject he addressed a rescript Bega exencrint to his successor Minucius Fundanus en- Fundanus, joining that the Christians should not be put to death without a formal accusa- tion and a proper hearing of their case. This rescript placed the Christians under the protection of the law in so far as it exempted them from the danger of popular fury, but it also recognised the illegality of their religion, which from this time was formally condemned by the laws of the empire. Under Barcochab (a.p. 132—135) the Jewish nation made a last despairing effort to throw off the Roman yoke. The Christians of Palestine were among the chief sufferers in this terrible revolt, as the Jewish in- surgents persecuted with all the cruelty of fanaticism those who refused to join them in the rebellion. On its suppression Jerusalem was made a pagan city Rebellion of Barcochab. 1. Euseb., 4.4. Iv, 2. 2. Enuseb., 2d. Iv. 3. 3. Euseb., 2d. Iv. 9. The genuineness of this rescript has been denied, but the evidence in its favour is very strong; it forms the con- clusion of Justin Martyr’s first Apology and it is quoted by Melito. The vagueness with which the rescript alludes to the crime of being a Christian is the sole cause for suspecting its genuineness. 60 THE GENTILE CHURCH OF AELIA. [cu. Iv. with the name of Aelia Capitolina, and the Jews were forbidden to approach it. The Christians having to choose between abandoning the city or their Jewish rites, decided upon the latter alternative by electing a Gentile bishop by name Marcus to occupy the seat of St. James and Symeon.? It 1s noticeable that a period of severe Antoninus Fits trial of a nation or institution is frequently ie preceded by one of unusual calm. Under the contemptuous indifference of Hadrian and the mild administration of Antoninus Pius, the Christians seem to have enjoyed a comparatively uneventful period of tranquillity. Eusebius quotes a rescript to the assembly of Asia, published in the name of M. Aurelius but ascribed to Antoninus, ordering the Christians not to be punished except for crimes against the State;? but as Melito of Sardis does not give the words of this edict in the fragment preserved by Eusebius, though he quotes one far less favourable to the Church, Neander considers that in all probability there was no such rescript.? In spite however of the lenity of the Emperor’s policy towards the Church, a famous martyrdom es RNS of happened in his reign. The venerable AD. 150. Polycarp, the last link that bound the Church to the Apostolic age, the pupil of St. John and the master of Irenaeus, was burned at Smyrna. The church at this place, in a letter addressed to the church at Philomelium, gave a very full account of the persecution they had just endured. The martyrs were tortured in a most horrible manner and then given to the beasts. One of them, a youth named Germanicus, actually encouraged the beasts to attack him, and his courage so amazed and angered the multitude that they clamoured for Polycarp’s execution. Quintus, a Phrygian who had provoked persecution by rushing forward to the 1. Euseb., #.Z.1v. 6. Neander, Church History, vol. 1., p. 143. 2. Euseb., 2d. 13. 3. Church History, vol. 1., p. 144. 4. Eusebius (#.Z. Iv. 15) places the martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Bp. Lightfoot considers it took place A.D. 155. Mr. C. H. Turner, in an essay in the Studia Biblica e¢ Heclesiastica, vol. 11. (Oxon., 1890) prefers A.D. 156. Pe ee le ee ee Te Pe i ee CH. IY. ] MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP. 61 tribunal, was ordered to be thrown to the beasts, but was so appalled by them that he renounced Christ. Polycarp had decided on the advice of his friends not to remain in the city but to retire to a farm belonging to him in the country. He allowed himself to be arrested though he might easily have escaped, ordered food to be pre- pared for the use of the police sent to seize him, and requested only an hour for prayer. As he was being conducted to the city, Herod the Irenarch and his father Nicetes met him and took him into their carriage to remonstrate with him for his obstinacy in refusing to say ‘Lord Caesar’ and to sacrifice to save his life. As however Polycarp persisted in his refusal they thrust the old man out of the carriage so violently that his shin was injured. He was brought to the stadium where the sacred games and shows were being exhibited, and asked to swear by the genius of Caesar and to curse Christ. His reply is one of the noblest answers ever given by a martyr: “Eighty and six years have I served Him and He never did me wrong, how then can I blaspheme my King who has saved me?”’ He was condemned, and a herald made proclamation “ Polycarp confesses that he is a Christian!’’ whereupon the whole multitude Gentiles and Jews dwelling at Smyrna cried out, “This is that teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our gods; he that teaches multitudes not to sacrifice nor to worship.” He was condemned to be burned, and the Christians of Smyrna believed that the flames would not touch the body of the saint. The executioner plunged his sword into the body and the great quantity of blood which poured forth extinguished the flames.1 The Jews were par- ticularly active in promoting the execution, and the body was refused to the Christians lest they should abandon the worship of Christ for that of their new saint. The letter remarks very beautifully, “They did not know that we can never abandon Christ who suffered for the salvation of those who are being saved from all the world, nor even worship any other.” I. For the many parallels between the martyrdom of Polycarp and the Passion of our Lord, see Lightfoot, /enatian Epistles, vol. 1., p. 595. 62 CESSATION OF THE PERSECUTION. |[cH. Iv. With the death of Polycarp the persecution ceased. Eusebius says that several Asiatic Christians had suffered death, among them a follower of Marcion by name Metrodorus; but this is not correct, as Metrodorus suffered in the Decian persecution at the same time as Pionius (A.D. 250). The historian found the account of these martyrdoms in the same volume (TH avr7 ypad7) as the letter of the church of Smyrna. 1. Euseb., H. Z.1v. 15. Bp. Lightfoot (of. czt. p. 624) thinks that Eusebius must have been misled by the phrase % avr} zeplodos rod ypdvov which possibly stood at the head of the Acta Pionii, and which expression he himself uses in this passage. The words may mean ‘the same epoch’ as well as ‘the same recurring period of the year’, z.¢. the same time of year as when Polycarp was martyred, and Eusebius has taken it in the former sense. CHAPTER. V. THE CONQUEST OF HEATHENISM BY CHRISTIANITY. A.D. 161—A.D. 313. ECCLESIASTICAL history sometimes has epochs not exactly synchronising with political events. The age of the Antonines which closes with the death of Marcus Aurelius does not conclude an era of Church history, whilst the accession of that emperor distinctly marks a new period in the development of Christianity. The Roman Government began to regard the Church as an institution which must be suppressed by force, and persecuted, not merely in order to gratify the people, but to extirpate an unlawful association. In spite of long truces and temporary agreements, Christianity and the State had become two rival powers striving for the mastery of the world, and until the close of the final contest under Diocletian there could be no real peace between them.! The Church was herself fully prepared for the struggle. During the first century of her existence she had perfected her organization, and her leaders, the bishops, had obtained unquestioned authority. Her contests with\ heresy had forced her to give her teaching a clearer and more dogmatic form, and as a consequence of this she had almost come to a final decision as to the composition of her Bible. The 1. It is well to remember that besides the public persecution of Christians, believers were subject to the family tribunals over which the head of the household presided with almost unlimited power. Fathers disinherited their sons, and threw their most valued slaves into the horrible ergastula for professing the Faith, Tertullian, ad Natzones, 1. 4. 64 CELEBRATED CHRISTIANS. (cH. v. constant communication maintained by the various churches throughout the empire gave her a strength and unity which contributed greatly to her final triumph. We cannot fail also to notice that the age which suc- ~ ceeded the conflict of the persecution under Marcus Aurelius produced really great men in every part of the Christian world. Gaul, which had been visited by the severest trial, could boast of St. Irenaeus bishop of Lyons. Rome had the learned St. Hippolytus and Caius;? Africa was famous for Tertullian, and Egypt for Clement of Alexandria. All these Fathers flourished towards the close of the second century or the beginning of the third, and proved conclusively that the Church was capable of attracting not merely slaves and women but the leading minds of the age. ; The Emperor M. Aurelius, in whose Mares en tga” reign the Church endured the most severe trial she had hitherto undergone, differed greatly in character and disposition from persecutors like Nero and Domitian. He seems to have reconciled in his person the virtues of the Porch with the gentler grace, of the gospel, for the tone of his writings is sometimes marvellously Christian. Perhaps no sovereign ever reigned more exclusively for the welfare of his people than Marcus Aurelius, while his personal life appears to have been singularly blameless. His virtues were however precisely those which would be most likely to make him dislike the Christian system. He was naturally of a religious disposition, and this had been fostered by the piety of his mother. His philosophy attempted to steer a clear path between infidelity and superstition, and his desire was to restore the ancient reverence both for the gods and for the virtues of antiquity. Believing, as he did, that the gods communicated with men by dreams and other means, he did all in his power to introduce the ancient ceremonies, and his sacrifices before the war with the Marcomanni provoked the 1. Who Caius was is extremely difficult to say. He is quoted by Eusebius, 7. #. 11. 25, and mentioned in vI. 20 and 111. 28. He has been identified with Hippolytus, see the note in the edition of Eusebius in The Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, by Dr. McGiffert, p. 229, on bk, 11. ch, 25. ; CH. V.] LIBELS AGAINST THE CHURCH. 65 ridicule of the heathen epigrammatist: of ANevKol Boes Madpxo t@ Katcapu: dv av vixnons, jets amr@dopeba) The Stoic philosophy of the Emperor also tended to prejudice him against the Church, and he specially: condemns the obstinacy with which the Christians met death, contrasting it with the calmness of the philosopher whose judgment is guided by reason.? To this must be added the prejudices against the Christians which had been instilled into the Emperor’s mind by his preceptors. Fronto of Cirta, the tutor of M. Aurelius, for example, lent his name to the vulgar libels which charged the Christians with shameful orgies at their love feasts.2 Nor must we forget that the reign of Marcus Aurelius was marked by many frightful calamities, the year 166, during which a serious outbreak of persecution occured throughout the Empire, being known as the annus calamitosus. Every evil which the prudence of man could not avert seems to have afflicted the world; famines, pestilence, the overflow of the Tiber, the invasion of the Marcomanni and Quadi. No wonder that the populace should have sought to propitiate their offended gods by attacking the men whom they in their ignorance styled atheists.‘ oid & At Rome several Christians suffered Fersecutions in martyrdom, the most notable being St. Marous SR erotiae, Justin the Apologist. He was tried with six others by Q. Junius Rusticus,® who entered upon his duties as prefect of the city in a.p. 163. I. Neander, Ch. Hest., vol. 1., p. 148. The epigram is preserved by Ammianus Marcellinus, xxv. 4. 17. 2. Neander, /.¢., p. 146. 3. Bp. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, part. 11., vol. i., p. 513) quotes from Minucius Felix, Octav. 9: ‘‘ Et de convivio notum est. Passim omnes locuntur. Id etiam Cirtensis nostri testatur oratio. Ad epulas solemni die coeunt,” etc. Jb. 31: ‘‘Et de incesto convivio fabulam grandem adversum nos daemonum coitio mentita est...sic de isto et tuus Fronto, non ut affirmator testimonium fecit, sed conuicium ut orator, aspersit.” Prof. Ramsay (Zhe Church tn the Roman Empire, p. 336) says that ‘‘ during this reign the active pursuit of the Christians had become a marked feature,” and gives the evidence of Celsus (Origen, adv. Ce/, vit. 69), of Melito (who, as quoted by Eusebius, H.Z. Iv. 26, speaks of the new decrees by which the Christians were sought out), and of Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch. These martyrdoms are taken from Bp. Lightfoot’s Ajostolie Fathers, part 11. vol. i., p. 493; see also Euseb., HZ. Iv. 16. RK 66 MARTYRDOM OF JUSTIN. — (cH. Vv. Justin had long complained of the plots of a certain Crescens, a philosopher, who desired his death and also tried to compass the death of Justin’s pupil Tatian,! afterwards the founder of the sect of the Encratites. Polycrates of Ephesus mentions a martyr by name Thraseas and some others, from which it is inferred that the persecution in which Polycarp suffered was renewed under M. Aurelius.? The Acts of the Martyrs also relate that the widow Felicitas and her seven sons were executed at Rome; probably in A.p. 162. Persecutions occurred at Madaura in Africa and also at Scillium or Scilla in the same province. (A.D. 180.)* But though our list of martyrdoms is somewhat meagre, we may attribute this to the absence of direct informa- tion. All the Apologists, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, tell the same tale,* and we are told that in the reign of Commodus a large number of Christian confessors were liberated from the Sardinian mines. Perhaps however the best way of estimating the severity of the persecution is to take the record of the one well-known persecution of this reign, which took place at Lyons and Vienne. ‘Ex uno disce omnes,’ and the cruelty exercised in Gaul with the Emperor’s permission was probably not con- fined to one province.° 1. There is a difficulty in the text. In Tatian’s Cohortatio ad Graecos he says that Crescens plotted against both Tatian and Justin. Eusebius in quoting him reads weyddw for xal éué ws, completely altering the force of the passage: see Gebhardt and Harnack’s Zexfe Iv. 1, and the note on Euseb. 4.2. Iv. 16 in the Wécene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2. Euseb., 4.2. v. 24. Bp. Lightfoot, of. czt., pp. 495—499- 3. The Acts of the Scillitan martyrs are published in the Cambridgs Texts and Studies edited by Dean Armitage Robinson in his Appendix to the Acts of St. Perpetua. Now that the disputed reading in the Latin recension as to the name of the Consul or Consuls has been decided, it is certain that the persecution was in A.D. 180. Sentence was pronounced in the following form: ‘‘Speratum, Nartzalum, Cittinum, Donatam, Vestiam, Secundam et ceteros ritu Christiano se vivere confessos, quoniam oblata sibi facultate ad Romanorum morem redeundi obstinanter perseveraverunt, gladio animadverti placet.” 4. Lightfoot, of. cz. 510. Bp. Lightfoot’s first volume of Apostolic Fathers, part 11. (St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp), is worth read- ing if only to shew how materials ought to be collected by the historian, The vastness of the labour of this great theologian, if fully realised, might well deter the boldest from presuming even to follow him afar off. 5. Euseb., 4.£. v. introd, CH. V.] PERSECUTION IN GAUL. 67 The persecution began, to all appear- Persecution at ance, with the mob, at whose hands the Lyons and Vienne. Christ : AD. 177. ristians were exposed to every kind of insult... They were then arrested, and imprisoned till the governor arrived. Vettius Epagathus, a man of high rank, protested before the governor, con- fessed himself a Christian, and was condemned with his brethren. He was styled the advocate of the Christians,? and was the first to suffer execution. Ten of those arrested recanted, to the inexpressible grief of the others. In their letter to the churches of Asia it is said that the martyrs were never left by their brethren who were still at liberty. Arrests continued, and some of the slaves confessed that their Christian masters were guilty of Thyesteian banquets and Oedipodoean incests,® crimes which had long been attributed to the Christians through the ignorance of the people. These confessions, extorted by torture from slaves, made the people rage like wild beasts against the Christians.‘ A female slave, however, named Blandina, was tortured for a whole day, so cruelly that her tormentors wondered that she still continued to live. She died some days later in the amphitheatre, firm to the very last. Sanctus, a deacon of the Church of Lyons, was tormented by having plates of red-hot brass attached to his body ;° he said nothing but ‘Christianus sum.’ A slave girl named Biblias had charged the Christians with 1. Euseb., ZZ. v. 1. hypiwuérvy rrjOe. It seems as though the mob had been worked up to a state of frenzy by tales of abominations practised by the Christians. For some time before the persecution no Christian dared to shew himself in public. 2. mapdk\yTos XporiavGy. It is not quite certain whether he was put to death: Renan thinks he was not. Eusebius’ words are ‘he was received into the number of the martyrs.’ Ovécreca Seirva, cat Oldirodelovs plters. The manner in which the early Fathers defended the Church against these horrible charges, was to say that the evil conduct of some heretics gave a sort of justification to them. See Justin, 4fo/. 1. 26; Euseb., H. Z. Iv. 7; Iren., Haer. 1. 25.3. It must be remembered that in the middle ages the Jews were accused of sacrificial murder throughout Europe, and in obscure and ignorant communities the charge is still made from time to time. 4. dmweOnpiwOnoay els nuds. The torturing of slaves to obtain evidence against their masters is a proof that Christians were proceeded against under the laws against treason. Gaston Boissier, La /im du Paganisme, 1. 422. 5. Tots Tpupepwrdras wédect, E 2 68 THE MARTYRS OF LYONS AND VIENNE. [cu. y. great crimes; she was again tortured, recanted all she had said, and met her death as a Christian. A large number died in prison, especially those who had not been previously disciplined.’ Pothinus, the bishop of Lyons, who was over ninety, was beaten and ill-used in a most brutal manner, and died in prison. Sanctus, Maturus, and Attalus were all tortured again in the amphitheatre. Blandina after surviving her earlier tortures was bound to a stake and exposed to wild beasts. Attalus was roasted alive before the people. A youth, aged fifteen, called Ponticus, and the slave girl Blandina were brought out every day to see the tortures of the rest; the latter was the last to die. She was thrown into a net. and gored to death by a bull. The bodies of the martyrs were denied burial, and finally burned to ashes and cast into the Rhone. The Emperor approved of this shocking persecution when the governor of the province consulted him about some prisoners. Such then were the horrors perpetrated in Gaul, partly through the cruelty of the governor, but mainly to gratify popular’odium against the Christians. The fanaticism of the Gallic mob isa noteworthy feature of one of the most terrible persecu- tions on record. Gregory of Tours estimates the number of victims as forty-eight but gives only forty-five names.’ The letter of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne is justly considered as one of the most beautiful and touching monuments of Christian antiquity. Although the martyrs are full of a spirit of mysticism scarcely comprehensible to us, and despite other extravagances of language, it is impossible for us not to recognise a truly Christian spirit in almost every line of their letter. There is no hatred for those who fell away unable to endure the torments inflicted on them, no self-glorifi- cation, but most wonderful tenderness to the fallen accompanied by singular humility.® I, of dé veapol al dpre cuverAnupévor, Gv wn WpoKaryKicTo Ta Tdpara, 7d Bdpos obx &pepov rijs cuykdeloews adr’ Evdov évaréOvncKxory, For the horrors endured by the martyrs in prison see Pillet St. Perpetua, Le Blant Les Persecuteurs et les Martyres. 2. Quoted by Lightfoot, of. ¢z¢., p. 500. 3. Kenan, Marcus Aurelius, ch. xix, a ee eee ee ee iil CH. V.] DEFEAT OF THE QUADI, 69 pee at The Emperor Marcus Aurelius is said to Legion. A.D. 174, have shewn favour to the Christians on account of the wonderful deliverance of his army in his war against the Quadi. ‘The story is too remarkable to be classed contemptuously among the ecclesiastical legends of the period: it is related within five years of the occurrence of the miracle and is supported by heathen as well as Christian testimonies.! At the same time there are many and grave reasons for rejecting a considerable part of the narrative. The story is as follows: When Marcus Aurelius was engaged in the war against the Quadi the enemy had succeeded in cutting off the water supply for the Roman army, and it seemed to be threatened with destruction. The soldiers of the twelfth legion, which at that time had its head quarters at Melitene on the Euphrates, were all Christians. They fell on their knees and prayed for rain. Instantly a terrible storm discomfited the barbarians, and gave the water the Romans so sorely needed. Marcus obtained a splendid victory. Everybody believed it was a miracle. Dion Cassius (A.D. 220) says that an Egyptian magician procured the rain by his prayers. ‘Themistius (a.p. 389) says the rain was in answer to the prayers of the Emperor, who said ‘With this hand I invoke and supplicate the Giver of life—this hand which never took away life.’?. Even the Christian Sibyl attributes the rain to the piety of the Emperor, to whom the God of heaven would refuse nothing. The poet Claudian (a.p. 404) doubts whether it was the magic or the piety of Marcus that caused the rain. Contemporary art confirmed the narrative: on the Antonine column at Rome, Jupiter Pluvius is there represented, and the soldiers catch in their shields the rain which falls from his hair and beard. The 1. The evidence has been most carefully sifted by Bp. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 11. vol. ii., pp. 469—476. 2. Lightfoot, op. czt., p. 472. 3. Oracl. Sib., X11. 196, quoted by Lightfoot, of. cét., p. 473. 4. Claudian de VI. Cons. Honor., 348—350: Chaldaea mago seu carmina ritu Armavere deos: seu (quod reor) omne Tonantis Obsequium Marci mores potuere mereri, 70 THE NAME OF THE LEGION. [cH v. Christian account is substantially the same as the Pagan, only it attributes the deliverance solely to the prayers of the Christians. The letter of Marcus to the Senate describing the event is a palpable forgery, but on the other hand the writer shews considerable acquaintance with the men of histime. Eusebius relates that Claudius Apollinaris, who was a contemporary, says that the Emperor called the legion ‘the Thundering”! in memory of the event. Tertullian is equally explicit. He cites the incident as one familiarly known in his time as the cause of Marcus Aurelius having treated the Christians with lenity.? But in spite of there being a large con- sensus of evidence in support of the fact, several questions must be raised. For the name ‘Thundering’ was given to the twelfth legion as early as the time of Augustus. Dion Cassius speaks of it as the twelfth legion in Cappadocia 76 xepavvodopor.® Inscriptions also confirm this and shew that Dion does not give the title by anticipation. Again the legion was called in the Latin Fulminata not Fulminatrix, probably because of the emblem worn by the soldiers. The fifth legion was called Alauda from the larks which adorned the soldiers’ helmets. And lastly the station of the twelfth legion was in the East, as far as possible from the seat of the Marcomannic war. Bp. Lightfoot is, however, disposed to think that there is some truth in the Chris- tian narrative: a legion from Melitene would be likely to contain many Christian soldiers; the transmission of legions to great distances was not uncommon in time of war. That Christians should pray for rain in time of drought was to be expected. ‘The rest of the story is fictitious: the Emperor certainly never asked for their prayers, and the persecution at Lyons and Vienne in A.D. 177 proves that he did not mitigate the severity of his treatment of the Christians. 1. .E.v.5. The word used by Cl. Apollinaris, whom Eusebius quotes, is kepavvoBorov. The meaning depends on the accent: KepavvdBedov = thunderstruck (Fulminata); KepavvoBd\ov = Thunder-Striker (Fulmin- atrix). Lightfoot, of. cét., p. 474. See also the preface to the Translation - of the Medztations of M. Aurelius, by G. Long. 2. Apology, ch. Vv. 3. Dion Cass, lv. 23. , F . : 4 OS Pe ee CH. V.] PEACE UNDER COMMODUS, 71 Survey of the It is not right to narrate the only blot beneficent policy on the reign of this good emperor without ON bueno! at least a cursory allusion to his many ‘ ‘virtues and to the benefits he strove to confer upon his subjects. The laws of slavery were mitigated so far that to kill aslave was acrime; nor was it allowable to sell separately husband, wife, and children. The enfranchisement of slaves was in every way favoured. Criminal law was softened, fiscal abuses were put down. Marcus Aurelius hated the gladiatorial games and armed the gladiators for the public service during the Marco- mannic war. M. Renan says that during this reign we even hear of mattresses being placed under rope-dancers and of people not being allowed to fight except their arms were covered.! All these acts of Marcus make us regret the more the fatal mistake he made in regard to his Christian subjects. The son of Marcus Aurelius was in awgo ie2, every respect the opposite of his father, in spite of a most careful education. The philosophers talked to him in vain of virtue and temper- ance, their fine precepts fell on deaf ears. But the fencing master and the trainer of gladiators found an apt pupil, and their training was the sole education which he appreciated. The reign of Commodus was a disgrace to humanity, and his death (a.p. 192) a blessing to the Empire.? Yet under this monster of iniquity the Church enjoyed peace. Eusebius especially says ‘there was peace by the grace of God prevail- ing in the churches throughout the whole world.’® This is said to have been owing to the influence of the Emperor’s concubine, Marcia, who for some reason shewed herself favourable to the Christians. . The Roman confessors condemned to labour in the mines of Sardinia were recalled. One martyrdom, however, is related—that of Apollonius, a senator; but Eusebius tells us that the informer who gave evidence against him was also put to death. 1. Renan, Marcus Aurelius, ch. ii. 2. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, chap. iv.) gives a graphic description of the infamies of Commodus. a rusep., 4. 2. v.21. 4. Hieron., Script. Eccl, 42, mentions the slave Severus as the delator, but says nothing of his execution. The whole story is confused. 72 SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS PERSECUTES, [cu. v. Pertinax, an excellent and virtuous senator, was chosen to succeed Commodus in A.D. 193, but he was murdered by the praetorian guards, who sold the empire to Didius Julian. Civil war broke out; Pescennius Niger, Claudius Albinus, and Septimius Severus were the rivals for the empire, for no one regarded Julian’s claim seriously. Peace was restored by Septimius Severus becoming emperor upon the death of his competitors. Septimius Severus, according to Tertul- Septimius lian, began by treating the Christians Severus. . . F : es AD. 193—2u1. With leniency owing to his having been cured of a disease by a Christian slave named Proculus.! In the year 202 this emperor passed a law forbidding people to be made Jews, and ordained the same in regard to the Christians. It is very questionable whether this gave any legal footing to those already Christians, or merely forbade proselytising. Neander seems to be right in his contention that the Jews were protected as a nation, but that the Christians could not claim any such recognition, and that the date of conversion had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of those who embraced their tenets? A very fierce persecution raged in Egypt, especially at Alexandria; and Leonides, the father of Origen, was one of the martyrs.‘ It was so severe that many regarded it as a sign of Antichrist.” The Church in proconsular Africa also suffered severely, and this Martyrdom ~ province was the scene of one of the her companions, ™most famous martyrdoms of the early Church—that of St. Perpetua, St. Felicitas and their companions, in or about the year 202. The number of martyrs was five in all: three young men, Revocatus, Saturninus, and Secundulus, and the two young women. Perpetua, who was only twenty- two years of age, was married and had an infant 1. Ad Scapulam, c. iv. 2. Aelius Spartianus, Severus, c. xvii. ‘*Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit.”” Neumann denies the existence of any edict by S. Severus. See Ramsay, of. czt., p. 194. 3. Neander, Christian Church, vol. 1., p. 166 foll. Bohn’s transl, 4. Buseb. 22 vie 1s 5. Eusebius, 2. Z. vi. 7, on a writer named Judas who is otherwise unknown, who is said to have written on the seventy weeks of Daniel. =a, 4. Se - CH. V.] PERPETUA AND FELICITAS. 73 at the breast, but had probably lost her husband, of whom no mention is made inthe Acta. They were all catechu- mens, but the clergy obtained access to them and baptized them in prison. Perpetua’s father came beseeching her to have pity on her family and recant. The governor begged her to offer sacrifice for the Emperor. But she remained firm, and was condemned with the others to be thrown to the beasts. The day of martyrdom was the birthday of Geta, the Emperor’s son. It was usual to dress the victims in priestly robes before they were given to the beasts; but Perpetua and her companions remon- strated, saying they suffered that they might not be forced to take part in such abominations. The reasonableness of the objection was allowed and they were not compelled to wear the dresses. Felicitas, like Blandina of Lyons, was a slave, and her courage shewed the elevation of character imparted to the most degraded classes by the Christian religion. While awaiting her execution she became a mother. In her pangs she cried out, and the jailor asked her how she would endure the beasts if she could not bear this pain. She replied, ‘What I now suffer I suffer myself, but then there will be Another who will suffer with me, because I also shall suffer for Him.’ The persecution in Africa lasted into Gots. Caraca™ the reigns of Geta and Caracalla. Geta e was soon murdered by his brother Cara- calla, one of the most blood-thirsty tyrants that ever ruled the empire; and his reign was one of terror. It does not seem that the Christians especially were persecuted, but there was no change in the law, and in several provinces they were ill-treated. We have now reached a period during Disorders inthe which the Empire sank to the lowest AT eh ONS. state of degradation. The government for nearly seventy years was a military des- potism, and the armies of the Republic made their chiefs 1. The Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas have been edited by Prof. Rendel Harris and Mr. S. Gifford (Cambridge, 1890), and in the first of the Cambridge 7exts and Studies by Dean Armitage Robinson (1891), who has convincingly shewn that the Latin Acts are earlier than the Greek, and has given good reason for supposing that Tertullian may have been the editor of the Visions and the author of the Acts of Martyrdom. The Abbé Pillet has written a history of St. Perpetua (Lille and Paris, 1885). 74 SYRIAN WORSHIP IN ROME. (CH. v. emperors and deposed them at pleasure. Roman birth was no longer a necessary qualification for the purple: a Syrian, an Arab, a Goth were acknowledged as emperors. Nearly every one of the seventeen Caesars from Helio- gabalus (a.p. 218) to Numerian (a.p. 283) died a violent death. This season of anarchy and misery was marked by the rapid growth of the Church, in which it appeared peace was alone to be found. . An intrigue with the army placed Beliogabalisy, Elagabalus or Heliogabalus in possession of the Empire. He was by birth a Syrian and a priest of the Phoenician sun-god.! The four years he was allowed to reign proved him, if we may believe the historians, to be one of the vilest of mankind, fana- tically devoted to the worship of Baal, and given up to the vicious luxury of Syria. But the Christians were rather favoured than otherwise, the Emperor’s great desire being to exalt his beloved Syrian deity at the expense of the gods of Rome. ‘The idol of Emesa was brought to Rome, and the Palladium, the sacred image of Minerva, the mystic symbol of the favour of the gods to Rome, was chosen as his consort. After a time, however, the god divorced her, and a more congenial spouse was brought from Carthage.? The fact of the ancient gods of Rome being thus insulted, and of their worshippers being compelled by the Emperor to figure in processions in honour of an oriental god, must have done much to weaken the public belief in their power. The murdered Elagabalus was suc- eens ceeded by his cousin, the mild and amiable Ap. 999-935, Alexander Severus. This emperor, being an oriental, had not the fanatical hatred towards the Christians which possessed those who desired to restore the ancient severity of Roman disci- pline. His religion was eclectic, and his Lararium or private chapel is said to have contained busts of Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, and Christ. So leniently was Christianity regarded under Alexander, that Mamaea I. His official name was Antoninus. 2. Milman, Aéstory of Christianity, vol. 1., p. 174. ae Ee Se eS es, Oe CH. V.] A PERIOD OF REST. 75 the Emperor’s mother’ sent for Origen, when he was at Alexandria, and received instruction from him. Tille- mont asserts that the first Christian churches were erected in the reign of Alexander Severus.’ Alexander Severus was of too mild and Maximin the amiable a character to restrain the insub- Thracian. ; : ; A.D. 235—237, Ordination of his army. He was murdered in 235,and Maximin, a Thracian barbarian, seized the empire. The Christians suffered as friends of the late Alexander, but there seems to have been nothing like a general persecution.® clea A season of tranquillity as far as the Aordians. Church was concerned followed the death A.D. 237-244. of Maximin. Philip is said to have AD o44949, been a Christian. It is added that he tried to enter a Christian church on Easter eve, but was not allowed by the bishop till he had joined the ranks of the penitents. The Emperor obeyed the bishop, thus shewing an edifying example‘ of his piety. Although the story bears evident traces of being apocry- phal, it is none the less interesting as shewing the general impression Philip’s reign produced upon the Christians. No act, coin or monument of Philip shews any Christian bias, and the ludi saeculaves in commemoration of the thousandth anniversary of the foundation of Rome were celebrated with extraordinary splendour and no doubt with many heathen rites. . The long period of prosperity which the Church had now enjoyed produced a great change in the attitude of the Christians towards the Empire. The writings of Tertullian, for example, breathe nothing but the most implacable hatred towards the persecutors of the Church. The reason why Christians pray for the Emperor, according to his view, is because at the end of the 1. Euseb., H, &. vi. 21. 2. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xvi. The laws against the Christians were not yet formally relaxed. 3. Neander (Church History, vol. 1., p. 175) observes of this reign: ‘©The persecutions were indeed confined to particular provinces, so that Christians could save themselves by flying from one province to another. Euseb., H. #. vi. 34. Apparently the historian is in doubt. xaréxet \éyos is his expression. 76 REVIVAL OF ROMAN SEVERITY. [cH.V. Roman empire Antichrist will appear... But a most complete reversal of these sentiments is found expressed by Origen towards the middle of the third century. In the last book of his reply to Celsus he says, “ If” as Celsus says “all did as I do, then the barbarians also would receive the Divine Word and become the most moral and gentle of men. All other religions would cease from the earth and Christianity alone would be supreme, which indeed is destined one day to have the supremacy, since the divine truth is continually bringing more souls under its sway.’* But Origen was sagacious enough to see that this consummation was not to come without severe persecution. Once the Church entertained the idea of being supreme in the Roman Empire she entered upon a contest, the issues of which were annihilation or a com- plete triumph. Directly the enfeebled Empire regained even a temporary accession of strength it was bound to try conclusions with the ever increasing Church. | ones It was the object of Decius to be a eran second Trajan and to revive the ancient ; Roman discipline. For this purpose, shortly before his death, the Emperor restored the office of censor, which had long since fallen into desuetude. Per- secution was the natural consequence of such a policy. We have already seen that the ancient Roman ideal was totally irreconcileable with Christianity, and the first attempt to revive it was certain to imperil the Church. The persecution of Decius was the most systematic and successful attempt to stamp out the Faith. Hitherto the attacks of the heathen magistrates had been local, and irregularly directed. The Church in one province might have rest, whilst in another a severe persecution was raging. Marcus Aurelius, for example, seems rather to have sanctioned the horrors of Lyons and Vienne than to have actively encouraged a general onslaught on the Christians. The reason may have been the comparative insignificance of their numbers, I.. Tertullian, Apology, ch. 32. See Robertson, History of Christian Church, vol. 1., p. 112, ed. 1875. 2. Origen contra Celsum, VIII. 68, quoted by Neander, Church History, Vol. by p. 179. CH. V.]} THE PERSECUTION BY DECIUS. 7/7 which made the statesmen of the second century but little apprehensive of the progress of their opinions. But by the middle of the third century all was changed. The comparative immunity which the Church had enjoyed during the reigns of the late emperors, and the attractions which she offered amid the miseries of the times, had been the means of greatly multiplying her numbers; and as we have seen, Christians like Origen had begun already to discuss the possibility of converting the entire empire. Accordingly Decius regarded the spread of the Faith as a very serious public danger, and determined to proceed to deal with it as such. It was his design totally to suppress Christianity,! and it is this which helps us to account for the character of his persecution, and for the policy of such great Christian leaders as St. Cyprian, in taking prudent measures for their own safety instead of courting the glories of martyrdom. They recognised the extreme seriousness of the crisis, and saw that the real need of the Church was not so much of heroes who were ready to rush upon martyrdom, as of the counsels of moderate men to check the rash enthusiasm of those whose zeal imperilled her very existence. We can also understand why the persecution under Decius produced so many apostasies. In the first place, the blow was struck suddenly, when after a long cessation of annoyances many had grown up as Christians without thinking they might be called upon to lay down their lives for the Faith; and in the second place, whilst the bishops were attacked with unsparing severity, every inducement was offered to the laity to abandon their creed. _ Decius in an edict published early in a.p. 250, which has not been preserved, imitated the policy of Trajan towards the Christians.2? The order of procedure seems to have been as follows: The magistrates were bidden under severe penalties to assemble all the Christians and to command them to sacrifice. ‘Those who consented to 1. Neander, Church History, vol. 1., p. 181. 2. For the edict we have the authority of Cyprian in his treatise de Lapsts. Gregory of Nyssa gives an account of it in his life of Gregory Thaumaturgus. 78 THE LIBELLATICI. _ [CH. v. do this were subjected to no further annoyance. Those who fled suffered confiscation of their goods and were forbidden to return on pain of death. Those who refused to sacrifice were to be examined by the magistrate and five citizens, and torture and imprisonment were to be employed to make them alter their resolution. The penalty of death was seldom resorted to: at Alexandria, for example, a boy called Dioscorus was dismissed after he had been severely tortured, in order that he might have time for reflection. It is a proof of the progress of Christianity in public favour, that we hear nothing of the abominable crimes of which believers were accused at an earlier period. Nor do we find that the magistrates tortured the Christians for the pleasure of the mob, as in the persecution at Lyons and Vienne. On the contrary, the magistrates appear to have done all in their power to evade the law by granting for a sum of money certificates to say that persons who had not sacrificed had performed the command of the Emperor.) This practice was looked upon with great disfavour by all right-minded Christians. “Those who had thus purchased the favour of the government were styled libellatict, and they were considered to have in a measure apostatised. In spite, however, of the defection of many, some of the Christians shewed a noble spirit of endurance. What words can express more adequately the spirit of the true confessor than the letter to Cyprian of the Roman Christians who had already beena year in prison: “ What more glorious and blessed lot,” they say, “can by God’s grace fall to man, than, amid tortures and the fear of death itself, to confess God the Lord with lacerated bodies, and a spirit departing but yet free to confess Christ the Son of God; to become fellow-sufferers with Christ in the name of Christ? If we have not yet shed our blood we are ready to shed it. Pray, then, beloved Cyprian, that the Lord would daily confirm and strengthen each one of us more and more with the power 1. Two of these /zde//i have been discovered; one among the Brugsch Papyri now in the Museum at Berlin, first deciphered by Dr. Krebs and published in the ‘ Proceedings of the Prussian Academy of Science,’ Nov. 30, 1893; the other by Professor Wesseley. Both are published in Harnack’s Zheol. Lit. Zezt. CH. V.] MARTYRS UNDER DECIUS. 79 of His might, and that He, as the best of captains, may at length conduct to the battle-field which is before us His soldiers, whom He has trained and proved in the dangerous camp, armed with those divine weapons, which can never be conquered.”* ‘The martyrs in this reign were for the most part bishops; Fabian of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, who died in prison, Pionius of Smyrna, Polyeuctes of Armenia, Carpus of Thyatira and his deacon, Alexander of Jerusalem, Acacius of the Phrygian Antioch, and many others, are named in the martyrologies, shewing that during the short reign of Decius hardly a province of the empire was exempt from persecution.’ ares Valerian had been chosen by Decius A.D. 253-960, +O fill the ancient office of censor. When he became Emperor he favoured the Christians and stayed the persecution against them. But Valerian was addicted to the practice of magic, and to enquiring into the secrets of futurity, and it is possible that the adepts of the black art, whom he consulted, Were more opposed to the spread of Christianity than even the pagan priests. Macrianus, his ablest general and treasurer, whom Dionysius terms an Egyptian magician, is said to have influenced Valerian against the Christians and to have directed the policy of the Emperor in this matter.2 In 257 an edict appeared forbidding the assemblies of Christians and threatening with death the bishops who would not conform. Dionysius, the great bishop of Alexandria, and Cyprian bishop of Carthage, were exiled under this edict; the latter seems to have been treated with the greatest possible consideration. His place of banishment was Curubis or Curobus, a pleasant town by the sea shore, and he was summoned thence by Galerius the proconsul of Africa, who reluctantly condemned him to be beheaded. 1. Cyprian, Zp. 26. Neander, Ch. A7st., vol. 1., p. 184. z. Dr. Plumptre, Article ‘ Decius’, Dict. Christian Biog. Dr. Harnack in his Altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 11., gives a list of Acts ot Martyrs during this persecution. He attaches most importance to the Passto Piontt, Acta Disputationss S. Achatit, Acta S. Maximiand the Acta SS. Luciani et Marciant. In these Acts no element of the miraculous occurs. 3. Milman, Hest. Christianity, vol. 11., pp. 191 foll. Euseb., 2. &. VIII. 10, quoting Dionysius. 80 DEATH OF CYPRIAN, [Ch. v. He suffered death, but to the very last he was subjected to no insult by either the government or the populace. The Christians had outlived the unpopularity which had caused the persecutions of the previous century. Just before the death of Cyprian, in the summer of A.D. 258, Valerian, at a meeting of all his great officers at Thermae neat Byzantium, issued his second edict, which is justly con- widered an important turning point in the history of the early persecutions of the Church. By Valerian’s statute the penalties for Christianity were codified in an elabor- ate and invariable table.’ For the clergy the punish- ment was death, apparently without any hope of escape by recantation. All persons of the rank of senators and knights were to be punished by loss of rank and confisca- tion of property, and, if they persisted, they were to be put to death. Ladies were to lose their property and to be exiled. Caesariani, or dependents on the Emperor, if they had at any time professed Christianity, were to be sent to work in chains on the imperial estates.? The policy of Gallienus towards the AL 060 26s, Christians is another instance of a bad Emperor proving a good friend to the Church. Like Marcus Aurelius, Gallienus was a philo- sopher, but the philosophy of the son of Valerian made him neglectful of the duties of his station. In Gallienus we have the spectacle of a cynical trifler reigning at a time when a bold and active administrator was required to uphold the Empire in its distress. Gallienus issued edicts staying persecution, and addressed a rescript to “Dionysius, Pinna, Demetrius, and other bishops” in which he declared it unlawful to molest the Christians. In addition to this he granted the bishops permission to recover possession of the Christian cemeteries.* Thus Second Edict of Valerian. 1. Mason, Diocletian Persecution, p. 113. Healey, Valerian Perse- cution, p. 162. 2, ‘‘Caesariani autem, quicunque vel prius confessi fuerant vel nunc confessi fuerint confiscentur et vincti in Caesarianas possessiones descripti mittantur. Cyp., #/. 80. Cf. Euseb., 4. &. vil. 10, where he remarks on the number of Christians in Valerian’s household. 3. Euseb., 4. #. vit. 13. In a rescript to Dionysius, Pinna and Demetrius and the other bishops, the Emperor gives orders drws dé rwv Torwy Tv Opnoxevoluwy adroxwpjowot. This may mean that the govern- ment officials are to leave the Christian places of worship. See note in Schaff and Wace’s WVicene and Fost-Nicene Fathers, in loco. CH. V.] TROUBLES OF THE TIME. 81 Christianity became a ‘ veligio licita’ and the Church a corporation entitled by law to hold property. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, draws a fearful picture of the miseries of the age. Every calamity seems to have fallen upon that city. Inundations of the Nile, encroachments of the sea, famines and pestilence, followed one another with fearful rapidity. The popu- lation diminished by nearly one half. It seemed to Dionysius as if the human race was in danger of exter- mination. The behaviour of the Christians at this time accounts for the ultimate triumph of the Faith over the Empire better than any of the less obvious reasons which. have been suggested. Whilst, during the pestilence, the heathen inhabitants in their panic deserted their nearest relations, the Christians attended on one another with the greatest assiduity, and many sacrificed their lives by sucking the virus out of the plague-spots of others. A religion capable of inspiring such heroism could not fail to make a strong impression on the public mind. The effect of the legislation of Gallienus AD ora t375, in recognising the Church as a legally existing society is shewn by Aurelian’s attitude towards Christianity. The Emperor had no sympathy with the believers. He was a devoted wor- shipper of the Sun-god, and he is believed to have meditated a persecution at the end of his reign. Never- theless when the bishops appealed to him about the deposition of Paul of Samosata, Aurelian decided that the buildings belonging to the church of Antioch should be given up to those whom the Christian bishops of Italy and Rome should appoint.?’ Although the Emperor may have been influenced in pronouncing this decision by the fact that Paul was a friend of the fallen Zenobia, he clearly recognises the right of the Christians to hold property. 1. Euseb., 4.2. vii. 21, 22. 2. Euseb., #.Z. vil. 30. Aurelian ordered the church of Antioch to be given ‘to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should adjudge it’. 82 GROWTH OF THE CHURCH. (cH. v. The immediate successors of Aurelian AD. 275276, did not interfere with the Church, and we Probus, | may pass by their reigns without comment, pty eet! following Eusebius, who says nothing of A.D. 282288, the period between the death of Aurelian Carinus and the accession of Diocletian. ‘The long AD 2a 984, peace which the Church had enjoyed had been very favourable to her progress in mere numbers; as it was no longer a breach of the law to become a Christian, the Church having ceased to be an illegal association by being legally recognised as a corporation. Before Gallienus the emperors who had not been persecutors had connived at a violation of the law ; but after that prince had issued his edict, it had become illegal to molest the Christians. It is therefore necessary to examine with care how it was that towards the close of the reign of Diocletian the Church was assailed by a persecution which, both in duration and severity, threw all earlier ones into the shade. The Emperor Carus died suddenly in Accession of his tent on an expedition against the A.D. 284. Persians. ‘The cause of his death remains a mystery. A terrible storm broke over the Roman camp, and it was suddenly announced that . the Emperor was dead.' He was succeeded by his two sons, Carinus, who was living in idle luxury at Rome, and Numerian, who was with the army. The latter died—murdered, it is said, by his father-in-law Arrius Aper, the praetorian prefect. His death was concealed for some time, and Aper commanded the army in the name of his deceased son-in-law, who was supposed to be ill. As soon as the army discovered that their emperor was dead, a council was held, and Diocletian, the chief of the imperial body-guard, ascended the tribunal, before which Aper was brought in chains. His trial was of the simplest description. Without entering into any investigation, which might have impli- cated others and perhaps himself, Diocletian, exclaiming “This is the murderer of Numerian,” plunged his sword into Aper’s breast. The troops saluted the judge and 1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xii. CH, V.] ' DIOCLETIAN. 83 executioner of Aper as their emperor (Sept. 17, 284), and after a short war, Carinus was defeated and slain, and Diocletian became sole master of the Roman world. she ts: Diocletian was of servile origin, his ‘Uipene: Sheree parents having been slaves in the family gustus, A.D. 286. of Anulinus, a Roman senator. The mere Galerius fact that he was able to rise to the and Constantius 4@ . Caesars, A.D.292, POSition of emperor proves that his talents were exceptional; but though he had served from his youth in the-army, Diocletian’s abilities were administrative rather than military. Like Au- gustus, his ambition was to infuse a new spirit of order into a disorganized world. With him a new era begins in the history of the Roman Empire. Till the accession of Diocletian the emperor had been, in theory at least, the first citizen in the Republic and the chief commander of her armies. The earlier emperors had flattered the Senate; and while they kept the power in their own hands, claimed to be no more than the princes of that body. In theory the emperor was appointed by the Senate, though practically the army both elected and deposed the master of the Roman world. Diocletian’s object was to do away with the interference of the one and the caprice and tyranny of the other. The former was divested of the last semblance of real authority by the Emperor’s fixing his residence no longer at Rome, but at Nicomedia, and making that city the centre of his government. To deprive the army of the power of imposing a master on the world was a more difficult task; but Diocletian undertook it with success. In the first place, by surrounding himself with all the ceremony of an oriental monarch he gave to the position of emperor a dignity in men’s eyes which it had previously lacked. By this means he rendered himself more un- approachable, and consequently less liable to the danger of assassination, than the purely military emperors had been since the time of Gallienus. But he made still better provision for his own safety and the stability of his government, by removing the chief temptation to rebel. As the Empire had too long been the prey of military adventurers, Diocletian made it no longer possible F2 84 RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE. [cu.v. for a mutinous officer to rise to the throne by the murder of a master who had usually no one to succeed him but young children, or youths inexperienced in affairs. In A.D. 286 ‘Diocletian raised Maximian, his old com- panion in arms, to the rank of Augustus, giving him the command of the West, but reserving the East for himself. Six years later, in A.D. 292, two younger men were appointed with the inferior rank of Caesar, to assist Diocletian and Maximian in the administration and defence of the Empire. The former chose Galerius as his own colleague, while Constantius became Caesar under Maximian. The two Augusti gave their daughters to the Caesars and promised to resign the Empire to them when they should have reigned twenty years.! 3 Yhis policy was completely successful, at least so long as Diocletian ruled. The Caesars treated the Augusti with respect, and Maximian joined with them in revering Diocletian as their common benefactor. We cannot fail to admire the wisdom that prompted the whole arrangement. ‘The active work of defending the frontiers was given to the younger men. To Constantius were assigned Gaul, Spain, and Britain; to Galerius the Illyrian provinces. Maximian, a rough soldier, was associated with Constantius, a man of education and humanity; whilst Galerius, who possessed even greater military capacity than Maximian, acted as Caesar to the more pacific and statesmanlike Diocletian.’ The Christian Church was to all che Christians appearance both secure and prosperous. She had outlived the age of calumny and 1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xiii. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, ch. i. Firth, Cosstantine, p. 43. 2. The marriage relationships of the Augusti and Caesars are as follows : Maximian ' Diocletian 2 m. . Prisca Theodora tatep: daughter) Maxentius Fausta mM. m. Valeria Coiistantiug (@. 306) adaughterof Constantine mM. Galerius Galerius Constantine | (@. 311) son of Constantius by Helena Pe a CH. v) CHRISTIANITY IN THE PALACE, 85 had long enjoyed the respect of both Greeks and bar- barians.’. As usual, the imperial palace was a strong- hold of Christianity; Diocletian’s wife Prisca and his daughter Valeria being open professors of the Faith.? Dorotheus and Gorgonius, the most influential of Dio- cletian’s chamberlains, were Christians.? Theonas the bishop of Alexandria wrote to Lucian the prepositus cubicularum on the subject of what the duty of a Christian would be if he were appointed librarian to Diocletian.* Churches were rising everywhere and great numbers were being converted to the Faith. This state of things continued for no less than eighteen years after the accession of Diocletian, and did not cease till the abdication of the great Emperor was drawing on apace. Signs were not wanting that the ee ar Te peace enjoyed by the Christians was the Christians. mot destined to endure. Isolated cases of persecution were from time to time manifesting themselves, especially in the army. Here and there a soldier suffered death for the Faith. One general called Veturius ordered his soldiers to abjure Christianity on pain of military degradation. Lactantius records that when Diocletian was at Antioch he con- sulted the omens, and that the exta of the victims exhibited none of the usual signs. The master of the soothsayers declared that profane persons were present and had prevented an answer being given by the gods. Diocletian ordered all who were present to sacrifice, but nothing further followed. Possibly this happened during the Persian war, but the incident may have been only a type of what frequently occurred.’ 1. Euseb., 4.2. vill. 1. 2. Lactantius, Mort. Pers. c. 15.—‘Sacrificio pollui coegit’ are the words used by Diocletian in forcing these ladies to sacrifice. 2., Kuseb,, AZ. £. soc. cit. 4. This letter is preserved in Routh’s Religuiae Sacrae. Mason, in his Persecution of Diocletian, gives a translation of it. 5. Euseb., H. Z. vill. 4. oraviws rovrwy eis rou kal devrepos. 6. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 41. Lactantius, Mort. aves. ©. 1D. 7. Milman, Ast. Christ., vol. 11., p. 214, 86 HOSTILITY TO CHRISTIANS. [cH. v. : With the rise of the Neo-Platonists Enemies of the of Alexandria, headed by Porphyry, the bitterest of literary opponents of Chris- tianity, who died about the time of Diocletian’s abdication, a sort of revival had taken place among the worshippers of the ancient gods. The new school sought to explain the ancient superstitions by allegories, and mingled the practice of magic with the study of philosophy. They attacked the Christians, as Gibbon says, with all the fury of civil war, the most active persecutors being the philosophers MHierocles and Theotecnus.! The Emperor Galerius was exactly the sort of man to be influenced by such representations as theirs, being by birth an ignorant peasant, the son of an intensely superstitious mother, and himself naturally prone to cruelty against the Christians, whose presence in the army was also very distasteful to him. "use It was not till 302-3 that a deliberate Diocletian attempt was made to induce Diocletian persuaded to : persecute. | to order a persecution. The old Emperor foresaw that to suppress Christianity was no easy task, and he hesitated to molest a numerous body of men, who had not only the prescriptive right to exist which more than forty years impunity might reasonably confer, but also the edicts of Gallienus in their favour. Galerius, however, pressed his colleague to consent, and at last persuaded Diocletian, against his better judgment, to allow Christianity to be attacked provided it was done without loss of life? — 1. SeeGibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xvi.(end). Mason, of. czt., p. 58. Dr. Mason considers that Theotecnus was the author of the forged Acts of Pilate, which Maximin Daza ordered to be taught in the schools. 2. In a short appendix to his Translation of the Church History of Eusebius (Schaff and Wace, Wicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) Dr. McGiffert discusses the reasons Galerius had for desiring Diocletian to persecute the Christians. He dismisses the idea that he was actuated by religious motives, and suggests that the Christians in the palace of Diocletian were engaged in a scheme to induce that emperor to name a successor less hostile to the Christians than Galerius. This, he considers, accounts for the severity with which Diocletian treated his own Christian dependents. The following weighty words suggest a probable motive for Diocletian’s CH. V.] THE EDICTS. 87 : The first edict was based on the edict en og eos. of Valerian, but with a few striking ‘ differences. The penalty of death was not mentioned by Diocletian, nor were ladies punishable under its provisions. The law of Diocletian falls into three heads: (1) churches are to be abolished, (2) all Christian writings to be destroyed, (3) all persons who profess Christianity rendered infames and incapable of holding rank and property, free men degraded to the position of slaves. This edict was torn down by a Christian of Nicomedia, named George, who paid the penalty of his rash act by a cruel death.” A fire broke out in the palace at amano fs Sane et Nicomedia; Galerius accused the Chris- tians, and the slaves of the imperial household were tortured in order to discover the culprits. A few days after this a second fire broke out. Galerius declared his life to be in danger, and left the city. The Christians in the imperial house- hold were cruelly tortured; the wife and daughter of Diocletian were forced to sacrifice; the chamberlains Dorotheus and Gorgonius together with the bishop of Nicomedia suffered death.2 Although innocent of causing the fires, the Christians were the chief objects of Diocletian’s suspicions, and as the East was in a state of insurrection at the time, the Emperor felt continuing the persecution: ‘‘It had become an earnest matter with Dio- cletian, and he was beginning to feel—as he had never occasion to feel before—that a society within the Empire whose claims were looked up to as higher than those of the State itself, and duty to which demanded, in case of disagreement between it and the State, insubordination and even treason towards the latter, was too dangerous an institution to tolerate longer, however harmless it might be under ordinary circumstances.” M. Gaston Boissier (La Fin du Paganisme, p. 15) considers Diocletian primarily responsible for the persecution, and remarks on the Emperor’s policy of proclaiming himself an incarnation of Jupiter by assuming the title of Jovius. 1. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 117. 2. Lactantius (ort. Pers. c. 13) censures the deed; Eusebius (4. Z. VIII. 5) praises it. Dr. Mason thinks that this injudicious gentleman may be identified with St. George of England. So Eusebius #. £. vil. 6. Dr. Mason thinks that Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, suffered under Maximin. (p. 324.) 838 PENALTY OF DEATH INFLICTED. [CH. V. that active measures against the Church would have to be taken to prevent the new Christian kingdom of Armenia countenancing a rising of the faithful. A second edict was put forth, ordering the arrest of all the clergy. : , : When Diocletian had completed the Dera eats, twentieth year of his reign a general amnesty was proclaimed. The Christian clergy however were not to be set free till they recanted, and torture was to be employed, if necessary, to induce them to sacrifice. The prisons emptied rapidly, either because a large number of the clergy did not like the — idea of torture, or because the governors of the prisons connived at their obtaining their liberty without sacrificing. In the spring of a.p. 304, Diocletian Dhol Edict. fell seriously ill, having apparently lost his reason for a time. He had steadily resisted the imposition of the death penalty for Chris- tianity. Maximian and the Roman Senate resolved, now that the great Emperor was politically dead, to persecute in earnest. An edict was accordingly issued by the Western Emperor ordering the Christians to be punished with death.? Diocletian, recovered from his sickness, piocletian and in accordance with his promise, laid aximian abdi- ; , tHT ‘ cate, May 1,305. down his authority and retired into private life, forcing Maximian to do the same. Galerius persuaded Diocletian to accept two of his nominees as Caesars in place of Maximian’s son Maxentius and Constantine the son of Constantius. Accordingly Galerius became Augustus, with his nephew Maximin Daza as Caesar, and Severus was appointed Caesar under Constantius who was promoted to the rank of Augustus. 1. Armenia was converted by Gregory the Illuminator, A.D. 302, and was consequently the first nation to accept the Christian faith. See below, Chapter xx. 2. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, pp. 212—216. This author hardly brings out clearly enough the anti-Christian feeling which probably animated the Senate. Eighty years later (in the reign of Theodosius) Rome was still the stronghold of Paganism. CH. V.] CONSTANTIUS CAESAR. 89 The Western provinces were destined to apt haere ed become the scene of civil war for several A.D. 305—811. years; but except in Africa, there was little persecution. In the East ‘the Christians had eight long years of persecution before them. Galerius, unrestrained by Diocletian, committed havoc in the Church at pleasure, and he was ably seconded by his nephew Maximin. The year 308 was a veritable ‘ Year of Terror’, and the severity of the trial lasted for two years longer. Affairs in the West were, however, tending to bring these horrors to an end. Bel : While the Christians in the East were aati ale tare enduring all the tortures which the malice death of Constan- Of their enemies was able to suggest, the tins, 806, to the Western provinces were witnessing thecom- pers 310: éPlete failure of Diocletian’s scheme. Con- stantius the recently appointed Augustus died on July 25, 306. His son Constantine, who was with Galerius at the time, made his way to Britain in great haste, maiming all the post-horses, says Lactantius, on the road to prevent capture. The army proclaimed him Emperor at York. Galerius gave a grudging assent to the choice of the soldiers by conferring on Constantine the title of Caesar, and raising Severus to the dignity of an Augustus. But the latter had not the power to support his position; Maxentius proclaimed himself emperor at Rome, his father Maximian hastened to his assistance, glad enough to leave his retirement for another chance of exercising authority. The generalship of the old man was sufficient to drive Severus to capitulate on the assurance that his life should be spared. The conquered emperor was allowed to kill himself by opening his veins.!. The usurpers in Italy hastened to secure the alliance of Constantine, who was equally apprehensive of the designs of Galerius. Maximian gave his daughter Fausta to Constantine, thereby securing at least his neutrality in case Galerius should invade Italy. The expedition of Galerius resulted in failure, and on his return to the East he raised Licinius to the purple vacated by Severus, giving him 1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xiv. 90 SIX EMPERORS, __ (cH. v. the command over the provinces of Illyricum. This caused Maximin to complain that his claims were overlooked; and he extorted from Galerius the title of Augustus. The scheme of Diocletian had now com- pletely broken down ; but in spite of the prayers of both Maximian and Galerius he refused to leave his cabbages at Salona to mingle in the political disorders of the time. ; There werenow (A.D.308)six emperors, and writes to the Corinthians in the name of the church of Rome. Bp. Lightfoot points out that the author of the letter has a very “thorough acquaintance with the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, and describes him as a man ‘“‘ whose mind was saturated with the knowledge of the Old Testament”; his language and style shew him to have been trained from his childhood in the knowledge of the Bible—in other words, he must have been either a Jew or the son of a proselyte. Jews were not uncommon among the slaves and retainers of the Flavian dynasty, and the bishop of Rome was probably a freedman of Flavius Clemens. If this is the case it is not difficult to account for the spread of Christian principles in the family of the consul. The Clement of the Recognitions is Heccguitiong’? represented as the son of Faustinianus—a relative of Tiberius—and Mattidia; he had also twin brothers named Faustus and Faustinus. Mattidia was warned by a vision to leave Rome for ten years, so her husband sent her with her twin sons to Athens. Faustinianus, having no tidings of his absent wife, left Clement in Rome, and started himself to find her. He also disappeared, and Clement was left without a trace of his relations. Clement was converted to Christianity by Barnabas, after he had sought knowledge in all the schools of the Philosophers. He followed his master to Caesarea and made the 1. Lightfoot, St. Clement 0, Rome, Appendix, p. 256. (1837.) CH. VI.] THE RECOGNITIONS. 107 acquaintance of St. Peter. According to the Clemen- tine romance, this Apostle seems to have devoted himself to pursuing Simon Magus in order to refute his errors. Clement followed St. Peter, and found first his long-lost mother, and afterwards his two brothers, who proved to be two of the Apostle’s disciples. Their mother Mattidia was baptized, and the three brothers and St. Peter retired to bathe in the sea and to pray. A working man, who saw them at prayer, obtruded his opinion that such an exercise was useless because all things are governed by fate. He gives as an example that his own wife had been born under an horoscope which compelled her to commit adultery and end her days on water by foreign travel. Ofcourse the working man turns out to be the long-lost father, Faustinianus. He also is converted, and St. Peter, after refuting Simon Magus at Antioch, baptizes him.?} me Le te. Till the discovery of the Jerusalem Epistle ofClement, COdex by Bryennius, it was supposed that the only MS. of the two epistles of Clement was the fragment preserved in the Codex Alexandrinus. Besides this, a Syriac MS. of the New ' Testament was purchased by the University of Cam- bridge from the collection of the late M. Jules Mohl in 1876, in which a translation of the two epistles was discovered.? Now that the second epistle is, by general consent, assigned to a date posterior to the death of Clement,’ there remains only one which can be attributed to him. This letter, in which the name of Clement does not appear, was addressed by the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, exhorting the latter to put an end to the factions which distracted the Corinthian Christians. It was sent by special dele- gates of the Roman church, named Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Bito, and Fortunatus, all of whom were elderly 1. Dict. Christian Brog., Art. ‘Clementine Literature’, by Dr. Salmon. Recognitions, §§ vil and VIII. 2. Lightfoot, S¢. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 303 foll. ‘*Bryennius (p. pv6’) maintains that the homily is the work of none other than the famous bishop of Rome. This view however has nothing to recommend it, and has found no favour with others.”” Lightfoot, of, c7?., P. 313. 108 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT. [cu. v1. men who had been Christians the greater part of their lives. It is possible that Fortunatus was himself a Corinthian, and he may be the same who is named in St. Paul’s First Epistle (xvi. 17).1 At any rate, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito may have been Christians thirty years or so before, when the Apostles Peter and Paul were in Rome; and thus the epistle was written by a disciple of the Apostles, and brought to Corinth by two men who had been converted in apostolic times. The whole tone of the letter is char- acterised by its reasonable and conciliatory spirit, which is the more remarkable, when we remember that it was possibly written by a member of the Flavian household during the dreadful months which preceded the murder of Domitian, when not only the Christians, but the relatives of the tyrant themselves, were in expectation of becoming the victims of his cruelty.’ Another interesting feature in the Epistle of Clement is the knowledge which this Father shews of the writings of the Apostles, and the complete absence of every trace of party spirit. Clement has no desire to exalt St. Peter at the expense of St. Paul or the reverse.t The Roman 1. Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 256. Clement says § 65 (59 before the discovery of the rest of the Epistle) rods dé drerradpévous ap ynuav KrAavdcov “Ednfov cai Ovadréprov Birova ovv kai Poprovvarw év elpynvy meTa xapas év Taxa dvaréupare rpos nuas. In the newly discovered portion he says that they are dvdpas microvs kal cwdpovas awd vedryros dvacTpapévras Ews yijpous dudumrrtws év yycv. 2. Clement of Rome, §§ 58 and 62, mera éxrévous émexetas. See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Pt. I1., vol. 1., p. 2. ‘* The letter was probably written while the church was still at the mercy of the tyrant’s caprice, still uncertain when and where the next blow might fall..........Flavius Clemens was consul A.D. 95, and he appears to have suffered immediately after the close of the year. In September of the following year the tyrant himself was slain. The chief conspirator and assassin was one Stephanas, a freedman, the steward of Domitilla. He is even said to have struck the blow with the name of Flavius Clemens on his lips..........If this be so, the household of this earliest of Christian princes must have contained within its walls strange diversities of character. No greater contrast can be conceived to the ferocity and passion of those bloody scenes which accompanied the death of Domitian, than the singular gentleness and forbearance which distinguishes this letter throughout.” Lightfoot, Zpzstles of Clement, Appendix, p. 268. 4. Bp. Westcott, Hest. of the Canon of the NewTest., p. 25. Clement, according to the Synopsis of historical evidence for the books of the CH. vI.} ITS RECEPTION BY THE CHURCH. 109 church could not have been distracted by any serious schism between Petrine and Pauline Christians when it could allow a letter to be written in its name con- taining the following passage: “‘ Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to the appointed place of his glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance...... after having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having reached the furthest bounds of the west (€7ri To Tépyua Tis Svcews €AOwv).”} The Epistle of Clement was very highly valued in the primitive Church, and was publicly read not only at Corinth but elsewhere.’ For this reason it was attached to some MSS. of the New Testament, and in the Alexandrian MS. it occupies the same position, viz. after the Apocalypse, as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas do in the older Codex Sinaiticus. i Besides the so-called second epistle panes fancy of Clement to the Corinthians, Clement Clement of Rome, has been falsely credited with two epistles on Virginity, an epistle to James the Lord’s brother, giving an account of his appointment by St. Peter to the See of Rome, and a second epistle to James, relating to the administration of the Eucharist and other matters. In the false Decretals (a.p. 829q— 847) the two latter are enlarged and three additional letters are forged.® New Testament given by Bp, Westcott, shews himself acquainted with the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 Timothy, with the Epistle of St. James, and possibly with 11 Peter. ‘* His acquaint- ance with the Epistle to the Hebrews” says Bp. Westcott ‘is such as to shew that the language of the Epistle was transfused into Clement’s mind. 1. Ep. ad Cor., Vv. 2. Dionysius of Corinth, writing to the Roman Christians, A.D. 165— 175, says: ‘‘ This day being the Lord’s day, we kept as a holy-day ; when we read your epistle, which we shall ever continue to read for our edifi- cation, as also the former epistle which you wrote us by Clement.” Euseb., H. E. iv, 23 (11); cf. 11. 16. See Bp. Lightfoot, Apzstles of St. Clement of Rome, pp. 3, 4, 9, for the early testimony in favour of the Epistle. 3, Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, p. 14 foll. 110 IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. |__| CH. VI. Of the greater part of the life of Tgnatius I ti ley littl 1 martored) about. (gnatius we ow as little or even less ( AD. 110. than we do of Clement of Rome. Even legend is comparatively silent as to his early history. In the Menaea for Dec. 20, Ignatius is said to have been the child whom our Lord took in His arms, but this seems to be merely an attempt to explain the surname Theophorus. It has been conjectured that he was a pagan in early life, and from his language, Bp. Lightfoot infers that his life had been stained by those sins, of which, as a heathen, he had probably taken no account at the time, but for which he reproached himself bitterly when he became a Christian.1 Tradition is unanimous in asserting that he was a hearer of the Apostles: Theodoret and Chrysostom say that he was ordained bishop of Antioch by St. Peter; whilst in the Apostolical Constitutions it is said that his predecessor Euodius was ordained by St. Peter, and Ignatius by St. Paul)? The only tradition preserved of the episcopate of Ignatius at Antioch is found in Socrates, a church historian of the fifth century, who tells us that Ignatius saw a vision of Angels praising the Holy Trinity in antiphonal hymns, and he left the fashion of this vision as a custom to the church at Antioch.° | At the close of his life all the obscurity that hangs over the early career of Ignatius is dispelled, and we are allowed for a time to see him as a very prominent figure in the history of the early Church. He was condemned at Antioch and was sent to Romie to be thrown to the beasts in the arena. But we have no trustworthy account of his trial and condemnation at Antioch, nor 1. Ignat. ad. Rom. 9., éye 82 aloxtvoune € airdv AédyeoOa* ovde yap dkids elu Ov oxaros avTwr, kat éExrpwuat GAN HAénual Tis elvar, édy OQcod émcrbyw. The language is obviously suggested by 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9, and 1 Tim. i. 13. See Bp. Lightfoot’s notes. 2, Apost. Const. VII. 46. 3. Socrates, H. £, vi. 8. He also says of Ignatius that he associated with the Apostles themselves: és xal rois dwroorédas abrols cvvdiérpepev. Bp. Lightfoot suggests that the legend of the introduction of antiphonal chanting by Ignatius may be due to his language in 7rad/ians 5, Kom. 2, Eph. 4: Apostolic Fathers, part 11., vol. 1.5 p. 30. ae oe eee ae =) able 5 ine a ae ee Sg : cH. vi.) JOURNEY OF IGNATIUS. III can we trace the first part of his journey with any certainty. His figure only comes into the light when he has reached the heart of Asia Minor, where the road from the east bifurcates; the southerly route following the course of the river Meander to Ephesus, whilst the northerly goes to Smyrna by Philadelphia and Sardis. Ignatius was conducted by the northerly road, but a message was sent to Tralles and Magnesia in the valley of the Meander on the way to Ephesus, to say that the Saint would remain at Smyrna and be able to receive deputations from the Christian churches of Asia Minor.? Ephesus sent her bishop Onesimus, Burrhus a deacon, and three others; Magnesia sent Damas the bishop, two presbyters, and a deacon; and Tralles, being further away from Smyrna than the two other cities, only despatched her bishop, Polybius. During the sojourn at Smyrna Ignatius ignatins writes wrote a letter to each of the above- Msnymna, mentioned churches, and also one to the Roman Christians to entreat them not to seek by their ill-timed zeal to deprive him of the glory of martyrdom. He was allowed to see his friends, and was able to draw much strength and comfort from the society of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, who was himself destined to die a martyr’s death. Although Ignatius was given considerable liberty for one in the position of a condemned criminal, he appears to have been treated with great brutality by the soldiers of his guard, whom he compares to ten leopards. It seems as though the greater fees the soldiers received from the Christians, the worse they behaved to the Saint,—no doubt in the hope of exacting larger gratuities.® 1. There are two Greek Acts of Ignatius given in Bp. Lightfoot’s works, but neither the Roman nor Antiochene Acts (as they are termed) are considered genuine. 2. Lightfoot, of. czt., p. 34. 3. Ignat., ad. Rom. 5: évdedewévos Séxa Neomdpoas, 5 éoriv orpariwtiKdy vdyua, oi Kal evepyerovuevot xelpovs ylvovrat, The chapter is a very remarkable instance of Ignatius’ thirst for martyrdom. He concludes, **Come fire and cross and grapplings with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushing of my whole body, come cruel tortures of the devil to assail me. Only be it mine to attain Jesus Christ.” (Lightfoot’s Tr.) hes 112 THE IGNATIAN LETTERS. (CH. VI. From Smyrna Ignatius was led to i bigpes diay otal Alexandria Troas, Here he wrote three Alexandria Troas, letters, to the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna, which had entertained him, and also to Polycarp. The object he had in writing these letters was to entreat the Smyrnaeans and Phila- delphians to send delegates to exhort and comfort his own church at Antioch. We next hear of Ignatius at Philippi, where the Christians welcomed him, and two other martyrs, Zosimus and Rufus, who “like him” (to quote the words of Polycarp) “were entwined with saintly fetters, the diadems of the truly elect.”! After he had departed, the Philippians, as we learn from Poly- carp’s reply to them, begged the bishop of Smyrna to send them a copy of the epistle of Ignatius to himself, and of any other of the martyr’s letters which he might have by him. It is probably to this circumstance that we owe the preservation of the seven Letters of Ignatius.” Of the rest of the journey to Rome and the martyrdom of Ignatius we know nothing definite— we see the Saint for a few days, at most a few weeks, of his life, and he disappears as suddenly as he appeared. Ignatius has been the cause of one The di orcas of the greatest of literary controversies. Ignatian Epistles, His martyrdom was, after that of St. Stephen, the one which appealed most to the Christian imagination, and his Epistle to the Romans became, as Bp. Lightfoot terms it, a sort of martyrs’ manual.’ The tragic circumstances under which his letters were written made them very popular; they were embellished by additions, and five other letters were added in imitation of them. In the middle ages Ignatius was believed to have corresponded with St. John and the Blessed Virgin. The great St. Bernard was said to have countenanced this foolish fancy. At 1. Polycarp to Philippians,c. 9. Lightfoot, of. cét., p. 37- 2. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 11., vol. I., p. 37- 3. Lbid., p. 38. Bp. Lightfoot thinks that St. Bernard misled his readers by saying that a certain Mary, Mariam quandam, was Christofera, alluding to Mary of Cassobola. ke Ca CH. VI] THE IGNATIAN CONTROVERSY, 113 the time of the Reformation Ignatius was credited with twelve letters, consisting of the seven we now have in a much expanded form, and five others, namely those to the Tarsians, Philippians, Antiochenes, Hero, and Mary of Cassobola. In addition to these there was a letter of this Mary to Ignatius. These letters are now called the longer recension. But it was observed by scholars that Eusebius mentions only seven Ignatian Epistles, and Vedelius, in a.p. 1623, printed the seven alluded to by that Father in one volume, and the remainder in a separate volume calling them 1a wevéd- evriypada Kal Ta voba. In 1641, when the famous Smectymnuus! controversy on the government of the Church by Bishops was raging in England, Archbishop Ussher made use of testimonies in favour of episcopacy taken from the Ignatian Letters. He was attacked on this point by the Puritan writers, the poet Milton among others declaring the Epistles to be forgeries. Ussher seriously investigated the question of the authenticity of the Letters, and in 1644 he published the results of his labours. He had noticed that, since the thirteenth century, the quotations from Ignatius made by English writers resembled the passages found in the ancient Fathers, and he divined that some copies of these Epistles existed in England in a less corrupted form than was then known. Two Latin MSS. were dis- covered of a shorter recension than that generally in use, and from these Ussher attempted to restore the genuine Ignatian Letters.2 It needed only the dis- covery of a Greek MS. to make the triumph of Ussher’s great critical genius complete, and two years later Isaac Voss published six letters of the shorter recension from a Greek MS. found in Florence. The Epistle to the Romans was not in the MS., which was im- perfect towards the end. A Greek copy of this letter was discovered half a century later and published by Ruinart in 1689 with the Greek ‘Acts of Ignatius’. 1. So called from the initials of five Puritan divines (Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, William Spurstow) who took part in the controversy. 2. Lightfoot, of. czt., pp. 231 foll. II4 THE SHORTER RECENSION, [CH. VL The controversy was resumed by Daillé, a French Protestant, whose work appeared in 1666, and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for having caused Bishop Pearson to publish his Vindiciae Ignatianae in 1672.1 For nearly two centuries the question was allowed to slumber. In 1838, however, Archdeacon Tattam pur- chased some manuscripts for the British Museum from the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Desert of Nitria.2— One of these was a Syriac translation of the Epistles of Ignatius to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. These letters are much shorter than the Epistles of the Vossian recension. ‘They were published in 1845 by Dr. Cureton, Canon of Westminster, as the genuine Ignatian Letters; but in the following year Dr. Wordsworth (afterwards Bishop of Lincoln) pro- nounced them to be an abbreviation of the true Letters by an Eutychian heretic. Cureton’s theory was based on the fact that the Syriac Letters omitted many strong exhortations on the subject of the duty of obedience to the bishop and his presbyters and deacons, whilst they retained others couched in equally forcible language. From this he inferred that the Syriac translator could have had no object in omitting that which is not found in his recension, though it might prove a tempta- tion to an editor of the Letters to interpolate passages in order to make the authority of the martyr support his own views.’ Dr. Cureton was supported by critics and historians like Bunsen, Weiss, Milman, and Pressensé; but the Tiibingen school, represented by Baur and Hilgenfeld, denied the genuineness of the Letters in any shape, and Volkmar held the Vossian recension to be an enlargement of the Curetonian Letters, made in A.D. 170, whilst condemning the latter as spurious. Indeed the matter was one of life and death to the Tiibingen view of Church history, and the theologians 1. Daillé’s work was entitled: De Seriptes quae sub Dionysté Areopagitae et Ignatit Antiochent nominibus circumferuntur, libri duo. (Genevae, 1666.) Bp. Lightfoot (p. 319) considers his arguments ageraey the Ignatian Letters very uncritical. 2. Cureton, Corpus Ignatzanum, Introd., p. xxvie 3- JLbid., p. xxxvii. CH. Vi.}] VALUE OF THE IGNATIAN LETTERS. I15 of that school had no alternative but to reject the Letters.1 Bp. Lightfoot’s great work appeared in 1885. In it he has given the whole controversy a most judicious investigation and has pronounced in favour of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius.? The Ignatian controversy is naturally in eae of interesting to Englishmen from the fact cbhiseversy. that some of the most learned of our bishops—Ussher, Pearson, and Lightfoot— have done much to restore the genuine Epistles, and that Dr. Cureton’s labours have thrown a flood of light upon the subject. But it claims the attention of all students of Church History alike, because the Letters are the key to our knowledge of the state of the Church in the early part of the second century. Their bearing on the question of Church government is of great im- portance. They give us a clear insight into the doctrine of the Person of Christ as held by the disciples of the Apostles. Further they are of the highest value in shewing the canonical position of St. Paul’s Epistles in the early days of the second century.’ Nor is this all; Ignatius shews that he has grasped the idea of a catholic and universal Church.‘ His letters prove him to have been always eager to know more Christians and to interest them in each other. They are the bridge by which we pass from the age of the Apostles to the age in which the Christian Church stands forth in the light of history.°. 1. ‘‘If for instance Baur had accepted the Ignatian Letters as genuine even in their shortest form, he would have put an engine into the hands of his opponents, which would have shattered at a single blow all the Tiibingen theories respecting the growth of the canon and the history of the early Church.” (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 11. vol. I., p. 270.) 2, Euseb., A. A. 111. 36. Bp. Westcott says of the Ignatian Letters, ‘‘The image of St. Paul is stamped alike upon their language and their doctrine.” 2st. of Canon, j ve Ignatius is the first to use the term 7 kaOoAtky éexxAnola. (Smyrn.8.) For Ignatius and Judaism, see Hort, Jududstte Christianity, Lecture VIII. 5. Duct. Christian Biog., Art. ‘ Ignatius’ (vol. iii., p. 216). 6. The views of Bp. Lightfoot are not even now generally accepted in England. The Rev. John Owen, in his able introduction to Dr. Harnack’s Sources of the Apostolic Canons, summarises the arguments advanced by H 2 116 THE CHURCH IN ASIA. (CH. VI. The Churches of Proconsular Asia are The Churches of great interest to the student of the sub- apostolic age, being unusually rich in Christian tradition. Ephesus had been the scene of the residence of St. Paul, St. Timothy, and St. John. St. Andrew, according to an early tradition, was a companion of the Evangelist, and actually assisted him in the composition of his Gospel. A Philip, whom Polycrates of Ephesus says was the apostle, but whom others identify with the deacon and evan- gelist, resided at Hierapolis;? his two virgin daughters lived to a great age and handed down to the men of the second century the traditions of the very earliest days of the Church.2 Thus Phrygia and Proconsular Asia became a second Holy Land to the Christians and the resting place of the last of those who had seen Jesus. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, was perhaps born as early as a.p. 60, and had consequently come to years of discretion long before the death of St. John. No facts are known as to his life: it is not even certain whether he died a natural death or suffered martyrdom. Irenaeus calls him a hearer of St. John and a friend of Polycarp,* and there is a statement found in Eusebius that he was a very learned man.® He composed a treatise called Aorvyiwv Kuplaka@y €&7)ynous, of which nothing remains except the Papias. Canon Jenkins against the genuineness of the Letters, and remarks ‘* For impartial English scholars, the Ignatian question may, in my opinion, be regarded as finally settled.’”?’ Mr. Owen’s summary (Introd. pp. cx.—cxiii.), is however very clear but hardly conclusive. 1. Muratorian Fragment. It was revealed to St. Andrew that St. John should write his Gospel aided by the revision of his fellow disciples and bishops. See Westcott, Canon, pp. 211 ff. 2. Lightfoot, Colossians, ‘The Churches of the Lycus,’ p. 45. Euseb. HZ. E, 111. 30, 31 (3), quoting Clement of Alexandria and Polycrates ; both these speak of Philip the Apostle, but seem rather to allude to the Philip of Acts vi. 2—5, vill. 5—13, 26— 40 and xxi. 8, 9. 3. Lightfoot, Joc. czt., p. 46. Assays on Supernatural Religion, Art. V., * Papias of Hierapolis.’ 4. Iren., Ve 33 § 4. “Iwdvvov pév dxovorns IloAvkdprov dé ératpos yeyovws. 5. Euseb., A. £. ul. 36, dvnp ra wavra bre pddtora oyiwraros. These words are however in only four MSS. and are omitted by Rufinus. The weight of MS. authority is in favour of the omission of the words, which the piety of a later age might well insert. The fragments of Papias are given in Lightfoot and Harmer’s Afostoléc Fathers. . CH. VI. | PAPIAS ON THE GOSPELS. 117 extracts given in some of the Fathers. But the quota- tions from his writings by Eusebius are of the highest value, since they contain the first mention of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark.! Papias tells us that he made it his object to gather all the oral tradition of the elders of the Church. He says that he continually enquired what was said by Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John or Matthew. He was repeatedly asking, “ What do Aristion or the Presbyter John say ?’”? He was also accustomed to collect the traditions of the aged daughters of Philip. Like some others who have done good work in preserving oral traditions, Papias seems to have had great capacity of acquiring information combined with almost unlimited credulity. Eusebius calls him a man of a very small mind; and Irenaeus quotes a passage about the abundant plenty which the elect shall enjoy in the time of the Millennium, which helps to mitigate our regret that so large a portion of his writings is lost. But the very dullness of comprehension which makes Papias record the tradition of the vine with ten thousand clusters, on which those who shall dwell in Christ’s kingdom on earth shall feed, makes him a valuable witness when he records the exact words of John the Presbyter on the subject of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. His words are as follows— Heshis ion wie “The elder John used to say: ‘ Mark originof StMark’s having become Peter's interpreter, wrote and §t. Matthew's accurately all that he remembered ; though se oho he did not record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s dis- courses. So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For he took heed to one thing, to omit none 1. Euseb., H. Z. ul. 39 (15). 2. Euseb., H. £. 111. 39 (4). It is to be noticed that the past (elzrev) is used when the Apostles are spoken of, but the present (Aéyovo.v) of the presbyter John and Aristion. 118 PAPIAS AND ST. PAUL SNE of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely in his narrative of them.” He says of St. Matthew, ‘“‘Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, and each one interpreted them as he was able.’ Although St. Paul says that his disciple Epaphras? had a keen solicitude for the welfare of the church at Hierapolis, there is no allusion to his epistles in any of the extracts from Papias which have come down to us. On this account he is considered by some to have been a Jewish believer who disliked the Pauline form of Christianity. This view is disputed by Bp. Lightfoot,’ who shews that the name Papias was the designation of the Hierapolitan Zeus and therefore an unlikely one to be borne by a Jew, and also points out that Millenarian views were by no means confined to Jewish Christians, being held by Irenaeus, Tertullian,* and most of the early Fathers. Nor can his silence as to the writings of St. Paul be alleged as an argument that Papias did not receive his teaching, since Eusebius quotes only a few sentences of his works. ‘This historian, moreover, when writing about the canon of the New Testament only cites what the Fathers say about disputed books. For instance, in speaking of Irenaeus, Eusebius says that he used 1 John and 1 Peter, and accepted the Shepherd of Hermas, but he says nothing of his use of the Acts or of the writings of St. Paul. Hence a modern critic might be tempted to set him down as an Ebionite anti- Pauline writer, but for the fact that in his extant writings he quotes St. Paul more than two hundred times. But even if we grant that Papias was the head of a Judaeo- Christian community, the Ttibingen theory cannot be sustained in the case of a bishop who was a friend of Polycarp and against whose orthodoxy Eusebius, who disliked his Millenarian views, has not a word to say. 1. Euseb., A. £. 111. 39. See Westcott, Ast. of the Canon, p. 71 ff. Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, Art. v., ‘Papias of Hierapolis. Stanton, Zhe Gospels as Historical Documents, vol. 1., p. 52, vol. II., p. 39- 2. Colossians, iv. 12, 13. ; : mG 3. Essays on Supernatural Religion, Art. V., ‘ Papias of Hierapolis. 4. Bp. Lightfoot (/oc. cit.) quotes Iren., Haer. V. 313 Tert., dav, Mare. 11. 24; de Res. Carn. 24. 5. Salmon, Jutrod. to the New Test., p. 105 CH. VI.] POLYCARP AND THE TRADITION, 11g Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, is one of the most important of the hearers of the Apostles. His influence was by no means confined to a single church or even to a single province. To him the eyes of Christians throughout the world, about the middle of the second century, were turned. When he visited Rome he was regarded with the utmost reverence by bishop and faithful alike. In Gaul Polycarp’s disciple Irenaeus related his master’s sayings to his disciples, and was the more reverenced by his flock because he had been the disciple of the great bishop of Smyrma. The martyrdom of Polycarp crowned the immense influence exercised by him. It was regarded as a matter not of local but of universal interest. The church of Smyrna addressed their letter, describing the sufferings of the saint, specially to the church at Philomelium, but also to all ‘ parishes’ of the Catholic Church.! Nor can we be surprised at this being the case, despite the fact that neither Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians nor the sayings which Irenaeus has recorded of him give us any great idea of his intellectual power. His great age made him a link between the Apostles and the men whose work continued into the third century. During the later years of his life Gnostic speculation had become very active, and many things unknown to the faith of ordinary Christians were declared to be derived from the secret traditions of the Apostles. In the face of such pretensions, it was natural Polycarp. | that great value attached to the genuine tradition of Apostolic doctrine.” St. John, we are told by Irenaeus, ant tan, survived till the reign of Trajan, a.p. 100.8 According to Clement of Alexandria, the Apostle, after his return from Patmos, went to Ephesus and gathered disciples about him. He seems to have organized the churches of Asia by providing them with 1. Euseb., H. #. 1v. 15. ‘H éxxAnola rod Oe08 %) mapoaxotoa Dutpvay, 77 éxkdAnola Tod Beod mapoikoton év Pirounrly, Kal wdoas rats xara wavra romov Tis wylas KaodcKAs éxxAnolas mapoixlats. 2. Dict. of Christian Biog., Art. ‘ Polycarpus’, by Dr. Salmon, 3. Iren., Haer. 111. 3, 4, héxpt TOY Tpaiavod xpbvuw. 120 POLYCARP AND THE APOSTLES. [CH. VL bishops, one of whom is said to have been Polycarp.* But, according to Irenaeus, St. John was not the only eye-witness of our Lord’s life from whom Polycarp had received instruction. “He had” in the words of Irenaeus ‘‘ been trained by the Apostles and had conversed with many who had seen Christ,’”? and it is a note- worthy fact that his letter to the Philippians recalls the language of St. Peter rather than that of St. John. If Polycarp was the son of Christian parents he must have been born as early as a.D. 69, according to Bp. Lightfoot’s reckoning of the date of his martyrdom (A.D. 155—6). In the next glimpse we have of this Father we see him following in the steps of his master and instructing disciples in the traditions of the Apostles. Irenaeus in a letter to Florinus, a fellow disciple of his who had embraced Gnostic opinions, reminds him how Polycarp ‘ would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord and about His miracles and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would relate it altogether in accordance with the Scriptures.’* This well remembered intercourse with Polycarp* makes the evidence of Irenaeus on the subject of St. John’s Gospel of the highest value in determining its authenticity. At the very close of his life, about A.D. 154, Polycarp undertook a visit to Rome to discuss with Anicetus the day on which the Christian Passover ought to be celebrated. Polycarp considered that it should always be celebrated Polycarp and lrenaeus, Polycarp at Rome. 1. Clem. Alex., Quzs dives Salv. 42, quoted by Bp. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 11., vol. i., p. 424. Tertullian (de Praeser. Haer, 32) says that Polycarp was ordained by St. John. In the Chronzcon Paschale it is said that St. John committed the charge of the robber, who had apostatised and been restored by the Apostle, to the bishop of Smyrna. Lightfoot, /oc. czt. 2, Irene Aaerd L139) 3. Quoted by Euseb., ZH. Z. v. 20. Transl. of letters in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 1. vol. i. » Pp. 429. . Irenaeus (Euseb., oc. czt.) says, ‘‘I distinctly remember (d.auynpo- vevw) that time better than events of recent occurrence.’ CH. VI. ] POLYCARP AT ROME, I21 on the 14th Nisan without respect to the day of the week, and pleaded the practice of St. John. Anicetus held that the festival should always be held on a Sunday. Neither bishop was ready to yield his opinion, nor to allow the difference between them to interrupt their Christian union, and Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his place. While at Rome Polycarp is said to have converted many heretics by proclaiming the true Evangelical doctrine. He also encountered the heresiarch Marcion, and in reply to his question “ Knowest thou me?” said “I know thee the first-born of Satan.’ The Martyr- dom of Polycarp marks the close of an epoch in Church history. With him the last of the Apostolic age had passed away. 1. This incident is related in Irenaeus’ letter to Victor, quoted by Eusebius, 4. Z. Vv. 24. 2. Eusebius, &. &. Iv. 14 _- = a re CHAPTER VII. ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLES OF GNOSTICISM. Tue Gnostic sects were the result of the contact of Christian principles with the current ideas of the first century; and every Gnostic system was an attempt to blend Chris- tianity with the theosophical speculations of the age. In a sense, however, Gnosticism is more ancient than the Church, being a philosophy of religion which seeks in the end to explain every cultus. Not only had Hellenism undergone a treatment similar to that to which the Gnostics subjected the Faith, but Judaism had, before the appearance of Christianity, been likewise transformed by external influences. The great test to which primitive Christianity was exposed from the outside world was not so much the danger of succumbing to persecution, as of losing itself in the popular philosophies of the heathen and Jewish world. In the critical period of the first half of the second century, the subject for investi- gation is how the Christian religion escaped being one of the many forgotten creeds of the Early Roman Empire, and emerged in a definite and permanent form. To pursue this it is necessary to understand the nature of the danger it encountered. The speculative philosophy of the East has always had a fascination for the practically minded West, and it exercises periodically a dominating influence. Alexander the Great’s conquests of the Eastern empires brought the victorious Greeks under the sway of Oriental ideas, and henceforward these obtained an increasing domina- tion over European thought. The nation whose work it was to act as the intermediary between Europe and Asia was the Jewish, which had (by its captivity to Babylon The Sources of Gnosticism. - 2] . ee i Cnt io \ CH. VII.} ZOROASTER. 123 and contact with Persia) become well fitted for the task five centuries before the appearance of the Christian religion. The ancient religion of the Hebrews, a singularly practical and unspeculative cultus in itself, became transformed into a creed full of mystical doctrines of angels and spirits, of hierarchies of heavenly beings and unseen worlds, by the influence of the religion of the Persian conquerors of the polytheists of Babylonia. The doctrine of Zoroaster, the great Zoroaster and the religious teacher of Persia, is found in the Zendavesta—literally the Text-and- comment—which is a work of eight books, written at different periods, the earliest of which has been assigned to B.c. 1200—1000.1 It tells us that from Zarvana Akarana or Boundless Time two antagonistic principles emanated,—Ormuzd (Ahuramazda) the eternal Word of the Father, and his younger brother Ahriman. Between these a contest soon began by each principle putting forth emanations: first Ormuzd after creating the pure world by his Word put forth the six Amshaspands, of which he himself was the seventh. These were of both sexes, and produced in turn the twenty-eight Izeds, from whom came forth an indefinite number of Frarashis or ideas; and afterwards his brother Ahriman, who for his pride and jealousy of Ormuzd had been condemned by the Supreme Being to sojourn in darkness for twelve hundred years, put forth three series of evil spirits or Devs to oppose his rival. In the contest with Ahriman the Word of Ormuzd, who is also called the Life or the Bull, was destroyed, but out of its scattered fragments Ormuzd made man and woman, whom he placed in the world which he and the good spirits had created. Ahriman, however, seduced the woman by a bribe of fruits and milk, and filled the world with noxious things. The Zendavesta predicts that in the days when evil seems triumphant, three 1. It is a disputed point whether Zoroaster was a monotheist or a dualist. Beausobre in his History of Manicheeism says, ‘‘ Zoroastre n’a reconnu qu’un seul Dieu, Créateur immédiat du Monde des Esprits, mais Créateur médiat...... du Monde inférieur, qui est notre globe terrestre.” Harvey, Jgnatius, Prelim. Obs., p xv. 124 KABBALISM. [CH. VII. prophets shall arise, one of whom, called Saoshvant, shall restore all things to their original purity. It is impossible not to be struck by the resemblance of some of the teaching of the Zendavesta to that of the Hebrew Scripture, nor to avoid acknowledging the great debt which Jewish theology after the Captivity owes to Persian teaching. The influence of the Zendavesta will be most clearly seen in the Kabbalistic literature of the Hebrews, and in the greatest of all the Gnostic heresies —that of Manes. reeyel, 2 The theosophy of the Jews is found in Kabbaia. the Kabbala, consisting in its present form of the Book of Yetsirah (or Creation) and the Book of Zohar (Brightness). Tradition assigns the composition of the Kabbala to the angels at the time of the fall of man; more moderate admirers of the work ascribe it to Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Simon ben Jochai (A.D. 100—200); whilst according to the sober fact it was compiled as late as a.p. 1300, by Moses da Leon. But though the Kabbala, in its present form, may bea late work, the theories it propounds are ancient, some being undoubtedly earlier than the appearance of Christianity. The Zendavesta is closely followed in the language of the Kabbalists, the doctrine of both being reproduced in the teaching of several Gnostic sects.? The system of the Kabbala is shortly as follows :— God is Boundless Time and is called En-Soph. He can only be described as non-existent, but the ten Sephiroth emanate from him. These taken together form the Adam Kadmon or Primal Man. They are divided into three Triads; those on the right being male, in the centre copulative, and on the left female.? United they form 1. King’s Gnostics and their Remains, p. 29. See my article ‘ The Jews and Persia’, /terpreter, April, 1907. Charles, Aschatology, p. 122. 2. Smith and Wace, Diet. of Christian Biography, Art. ‘Cabbalah’, by Dr. Ginsburg. King, Zhe Gnostics and their Remains, p. 33 Be Right hand. Centre. Left hand. MALE. COPULATIVE. FEMALE. THE HEAD Wisdom The Crown Intelligence Intellectual | wvedpa THE Bopy Mercy Beauty Justice Sensuous Yuxn THE FEET Firmness Foundation Splendour Materia! od pt CH. VII.] ESSENISM. 125 the tenth Sephirah, which is styled Kingdom. From the Sephiroth proceed the four worlds, each of which is a reproduction of the other. The first—Aziluth—is inhabited by immaterial beings. The second—the world of Creation—is ruled by Metatron, the highest being man may know, under whom are the angelic hosts who occupy the third world of Formation. In the lowest world are the Devils under Samael. Man is formed on the model of the Adam Kadmon and has three souls borrowed from the three worlds, the N’shamah (mw), the Ruach (nn), the Nephesh (vw) or life.1 He wasclothed in skin because of his transgression, but he must eventually be redeemed from the bondage of the flesh. The Law, like man, was originally perfect and spiritual, but it has been clothed in the garment of narrative. To extract its true meaning it is necessary to observe a number of hermeneutic rules and especially to discover the numerical value of the letters of each word. There seem to be two distinct views of the Essenes,? by whom Kabbalistic theories were given a practical form; as some writers hold that they were merely scrupulous observers of the Law who withdrew from the world to practise asceticism in seclusion ; whilst others consider that their rigid austerity, especially as regards the prohibition of marriage, their custom of turning to the Sun at their worship, and above all their magical practices, and the oath they imposed upon their neophytes not to reveal the names of the angels, are proofs that they were not orthodox Jews, but mystics, who derived many of their tenets from Ori- ental sources. In confirmation of the latter view it may be added that they did not offer sacrifices in the Temple; this shrinking from taking animal life being eminently characteristic of Oriental philosophy. Their com- munities are described by Philo, Josephus, and Pliny the Essenes. gr. In King’s Gnostics and their Remains, four ‘worlds’ are mentioned and a fourfold division of the human soul. The highest of the four is Aziluth, from which man gets the Chaiah or principle of spiritual life. 2. For references to the really important contemporary sources of information respecting the Essenes, see Lightfoot, Colosszans, p. 83, note I, 126 INFLUENCE OF THE FAR EAST. cH. vi. Elder, but there is considerable doubt as to their tenets. There were four grades or orders among them, and the candidates had to pass through a rigid probation. Strangely enough they do not seem to be mentioned in the Talmud: Bp. Lightfoot in ‘his Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians rejects all passages which are said to allude to this sect. Bnav The doctrines of Buddhism were pro- uddhism. : B Sy EGA : mulgated in India in the sixth century before Christ, by Sakya-Muni, also called Gautama. It is a philosophy rather than a religion, distinguished by the lofty morality, the sublime self-sacrifice inculcated by its teachers, its rigid ‘asceticism, its view that the highest end is the peace of Nirvana, or freedom from all desire to exist, and its practical denial of the existence of a personal God. Though Buddhism has never established itself in Europe, it made its influence felt in the Christian Church by means of Gnosticism, eapeua ny at Alexandria.’ erie Greek thought came into contact first ‘with Egyptian and later with Indian ideas at Alexandria. It has been maintained that Egypt was the ultimate source of all Greek philosophy, and certainly the religion of that ancient land was fundamentally Gnostic in character. Here was a polytheism so gross and a religion so materialistic that the superstition of Egypt became a by-word, side by side with a philosophic creed held by the priests, so profound that it has been said “‘we find the best and wisest of the Greeks ever reverting to Egypt as the fountain head of religion and knowledge’’.® Herein lies the very essence of Gnosticism —an aristocracy of enlightenment explaining a popular creed. Greek, Jewish, and Christian beliefs experienced at Alexandria the same treatment as the old Egyptian 1. Graetz mentions three probationary degrees. He alludes to the ceremony of initiation: ‘‘The new member was admitted with great solemnity, and presented with the white garment, the apron, and the shovel, the symbols of Essenism.” 7story of the Jews, vol. 1., p. 31, Eng. Trans. Our Lord has been supposed to have been an Essene. For this view see Schweitzer, Quest. of Historic Jesus, ch. iv. 2. For Buddhism, see Buddhism by T. W. Rhys Davids, London, S.P.C.K., 1882; Bp. Coplestone, Buddhism. 3. Harvey, /renacus, Prel. Obs., p. xxvii. > tia he rvese & CH. VII.] PRINCIPLES OF GNOSTICISM. 127 myths had received at Memphis or On. The plain sense of Homer as well as that of the Old and New Testaments was said to conceal a hidden meaning of spiritual truths veiled in allegory. This method of exposition found equal favour with all three schools, and Judaism in Philo produced in the days of the Apostles a Gnostic untinged by Christianity... For unrestrained allegory is essentially gnostic in its contempt for realities. As to an Alexandrian the facts of Homer’s narrative and of the history of Abraham were equally unimportant com- pared with the truths they were supposed to inculcate, so by the Gnostic of later times the circumstances of our Lord’s life were disregarded, and their symbolic meaning alone considered of importance. The reality of the Divine Life on earth began to vanish, and in its place a phantom Teacher instructed mankind about the Aeons and heavenly powers. Thus arose those Docetic errors against which the Fathers of the Church rightly contended with such earnestness. : If we enquire what principles underlie Prinein le all Gnostic systems, we shall find a suffi- cient answer in a single sentence of Eusebius in which he speaks of the question much discussed among heretics, ‘ Whence comes evil?’? The question of the origin of evil occupied the mind of mankind, and Gnosticism sought to present the solution. The answer was not supplied by the Greek philosophers, who had not allowed themselves to perplex their minds with the problem, usually preferring to dwell on the less gloomy side of life. Far otherwise was it with Orientals, to whom the existence of evil was a question of all-absorbing interest. Indians and Persians had meditated thereon, and had decided by universal agree- ment that everything that was material, or that could be perceived by the natural senses of man, partook of the nature of evil. Matter being evil, the conclusions 1. Of Judaism among the Hellenistic Jews Harnack says, ‘‘The Jewish religion here appears transformed into an universal human ethic and monotheistic cosmogony.”” zstory of Dogma, Eng. Transl., p. 107. 2. Hist. Eccl. v. 27, wept rod wodvOpvaAdjrov mapa Tots aiperrwracs gnrhparos, Tod ‘wrdbev H Kaxla’, 128 EVIL INHERENT IN ‘MATTER’. [CH. VIL drawn from the examination of the errors condemned by the Apostolic age follow. 1. A higher knowledge than is possessed by ordinary men is necessarily required to apprehend that which is super-sensuous. This was recognised as a truth by the Christian teachers, and by none more clearly than by St. Paul, who in the First Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the impossibility of the natural man (yvyex«os) understanding spiritual things (mvevpatixa)'. But whilst the Christian sought this spiritual perception from God, the Gnostics as a rule believed it to be the exclusive possession of those higher natures who were born capable of enjoying the benefit of more perfect instruction. The yvaois in the eyes of the latter was the possession of a favoured few, who alone were capable of emancipation from the restraining influences of material existence.? 2. If the material of which this world consists is essentially evil, it is evident that it cannot be the creation of the supreme God. It is also obvious that the union between God and the world cannot possibly be a direct one, but must be through the medium of agencies the lowest of which approaches most nearly to material existence. The Gnostic therefore held that the Creator of this world was by his very nature inferior to the true God. The worship of angels is a natural consequence of the foregoing. Man cannot understand one who is separated from his world by so vast a gulf as the perfect God. We can only approach Him through a multitude of beings which form part of a vast chain of emanations uniting the finite to the infinite. 4. If we acknowledge that matter is inherently evil we cannot admit the doctrine of the Incarnation. Christ, the highest emanation from the Father, cannot have soiled Himself by taking a material body. If man did behold Him on earth it was by some delusion, since He could have taken no real human form. 1. 3 Cor. th 14 2. Dobschutz, Tipe in the Primitive Church, p. 254. ‘* Gnosticism is, in the first place, intellectualism, one-sided over- “valuation of knowledge at the expense of moral activity.” i a Z 7 i CH. Vil.] GNOSTIC IDEAS IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 129 Matter being evil, the body must be evil, and consequently the duty of the true Gnostic was to shew himself hostile to it. Two courses lay open to him; either to conquer its desires by ascetic practices, or to adopt the alternative of shewing that he con- sidered the body to be so contemptible that he saw no harm in degrading it by indulgence in every species of sin. That some of these doctrines contain certain truths is undeniable, but a wrong light is thrown upon them all by the Gnostic teaching that matter is in itself inherently evil. Herein lies the inherent weakness of all Gnostic systems; they strike at the root of all morality, by denying that man in his state of material existence is responsible for his sins, which they assert are not the result of his free choice, but the inevitable consequences of the state in which he is placed. It is strange that a form of modern scepticism, starting from the opposite standpoint that matter is everything and spirit nothing, should have arrived by a different route at a perfectly similar conclusion. In the days of the Apostles signs of op ae incipient Gnosticism were not wanting, as is evidenced by St. Paul’s epistle, written about a.p. 63, from Rome to the Colossian Church, which was threatened by a heresy, characterised by Bp. Lightfoot as “‘ Christian Essenism, as distinguished from the Christian Pharisaism of the false teachers in Galatia”. That the heresy at Colossae was Judaic in character is evident from such a passage as “ Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, ora sabbath” ;? and that it may contain many of the elements of Gnosticism may be seen— (a) By the way in which St. Paul dwells on such 1. Irenaeus, Hereszes, 1. 1, 10 and 12, speaking of the Valentinians ; Hippolytus, Phzlosophumena vi. 19, of Simon Magus. The ‘elect’ claimed the right to sin with impunity, since gold when plunged into _ mire loses not its beauty. Many Gnostics refused to see merit in martyrs dom, and opposed the zeal, often excessive, for it sometimes found in the Church. Débschutz, Life in the Primitive Church, p. 250. Re Col, di. 36. I 130 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. _ (CH, VIL words as wisdom (oodfa), understanding (cvvects), knowledge (yvaous and émriyvwots), and by the implied condemnation of any intellectual exclusiveness in the words vovOetoivtes mavta avOpwrov Kal diddoKovtes mavta avOpwrov dv radon copia wa tapactnowpev mavta avOpatrov téXevov ev Xpiot@. Here the word was is four times repeated in order to exclude any idea of the Gospel lacking universality or completeness. (b) By the condemnation of the worship of angels,? and the repeated assertion that Christ is above all heavenly thrones, lordships, powers, and authorities, and that the plevoma or fulness of divine perfection dwells in Him.’ (c) As the false teachers of Colossae laid great stress on asceticism, St. Paul warns the Colossians “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink”; and again, “Why do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, ‘handle not, nor taste, nor touch’; which things have a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and severity to the body?’’"* &c. The Colossian heresy has consequently been pronounced to contain all the essential elements of a Gnostic system.® soy The neighbouring city of Ephesus was Epes © @.-«GTeat stronghold of Apostolic Chris- tianity, and it was there that the most insidious attacks on the Faith were made. ‘The Epistle to the Ephesians, which bears a very strong resemblance to the Colossian letter, earnestly upholds the superiority of Christ to all the heavenly powers.® St. Paul is I~ Co}, :iti28, 2... Col. 28. 3. Opdvor, kupidrnres, dpxal, éfovolar. Col. i. 16, ii. 10, 15. 4. Col. ii. 16, 20—23. Ma 5. Dr. Hort (Judazstic Christianity, pp. 116—129) gives many reasons for rejecting the hypothesis that the so-called Colossian heresy was the result of a union of Essenism with Christianity. He compares the warn- ings to the Colossians with those given by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and (pp. 119, I20) argues that the words in Col. ii. 8—7js dirocopias Kat Kevijs drdrys—do not imply a Gnostic system, but simply ascetic Judaism. The leaders of the Jewish party at Colossae may have called their teaching 7 gtAocodia. ‘* This” to quote Dr. Hort ‘* would be merely a fresh example of a widely spread tendency of that age to disarm Western prejudice against things Jewish by giving them a quasi Hellenic varnish.” Cf. also Dr. Knight, 4%. to Colossians, pp. 27 ff., and Williams, Colossians and Philemon, xvii ff. 6. Ephesians 1. 20—23. a CH. VII. ] GERMS OF DOCETIC HERESY. 131 evidently hinting at the prevalence of errors similar to those at Colossae; but this letter, being probably a circular epistle, does not attack the false doctrine so directly as its companion letter addressed to the church of Colossae. We see also from the Acts that St. Paul had been very apprehensive of the danger of heresy in Ephesus. The attempt made by Jewish exorcists like the sons of Sceva to form an alliance with the Christian. teachers boded no good ;? and at a later date St. Paul in his speech at Miletus says to the elders of the Ephesian church, “I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things,” &c.2 That these forebodings were fulfilled is evident from the epistles to Timothy, who was left at Ephesus probably after St. Paul’s liberation from his first Roman captivity. The errors, of which Timothy is warned to beware, are not unlike those at Colosae, but the Jewish element is even more prominent. The false teachers ‘ desire to be teachers of the Law’;® they share with the Essenes a dislike of marriage ;* like the Colossian heretics they command abstinence from meats. In the Epistle to Titus, which belongs to the same group as1 Timothy, the myths of the heretics are expressly styled Jewish. The Gnostic element appears in the asceticism above noticed, and in the concluding words of 1 Timothy in which the Apostle speaks of “the oppositions of know- lege falsely so called”.5 Without entering fully into the subject of the heresy condemned in the Pastoral Epistles, it may be well to call the attention of the reader to one feature which has no counterpart in the ~Colossian heresy. The first indications of the Docetic error, denying the reality of the incarnation of our d Lord, appear to have induced St. Paul to assert plainly that Jesus Christ was manifest in the flesh.6 If we _had nothing else to go upon but this passage, this state- ’ BR AS ment might appear to be fanciful; but on turning te 1. Acts xix. 14. 2. Acts xx. 29—30. e..Farmad. 7. ae On Tie iv: . I Tim. vi. 20, dvridéces Tis Yevdwvdpou yrucews. é I Tim. iii. 16, bs épavepdOn év capxl. 11 Tim. ii, 8, 12 a ad oa ‘= Pia at g pi - ——s 132 DANGERS IN LATER APOSTOLIC AGE. [cH. viL the Johannine literature, which also seems to have been produced at Ephesus, we find special stress laid on the fact that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.’ It is possible that the assertion of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who said ‘‘that the resurrection is past already,’*? was due to this belief in the inherent evil of matter, which made many shrink from the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection.® | After the death of St. Paul, the false teachers appear to have pushed their doctrines to the most fatal of all conclusions adopted by the Gnostics. We have seen how an undue regard for yvoots, as contrasted with the great Christian virtues, led to serious misapprehension, and how a false ideal of life had been developed owing to the asceticism enforced on aspirants to the higher knowledge. We have seen how the cardinal doctrines of the Faith were tampered with, and the reality of the Incarnation denied ; but, though we may condemn the errors of the false teachers, their lives seem at first to have been free from any moral stain. But experience shewed that the vigorous condemnation of Gnostic error was justified. Immorality began to be the distinguishing feature of some false teachers at the close of the apostolic age. The following passages are sufficiently explicit to shew that the heaviest charge against the heretics at this time was one of immorality. In 1 Peter we find them condemned in the following terms: “Among you also shall be false teachers who shall privily bring in destructive heresies (aipécets amwaAciais), denying even the Master that bought them 5......... and many shall follow their lascivious doings (tais dacedyelas), by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken re AE Ae but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the Antinomianism. 1. John i. 14, 6 Adyos capt éyévero. 1Johniv. 2. 1 John, 7. 22. ORT im. G17) Bes . 3. Dr. Hort, /udazstic Christianity, p. 146, after discussing the alleged evidences of Gnostic error condemned in the Pastoral Epistles, pronounces against them. He admits however “‘ that there are indications are of some such abstinence in the matter of foods......as at Colossae and — Rome, with a probability that marriage would before long come likewise — piss a religious ban.” See also Dr. Bernard, Pastoral Epistles, pp. v CH. Vil,] CLASSIFICATION OF GNOSTIC SECTS, 133 lust of defilement, and despise dominion,...... men that count it pleasure to revel in the day-time, spots and blemishes, revelling in their love-feasts while they feast with you: having eyes full of an adulteress, and that can- not cease from sin (weotovs woryanibdos Kai axatatravaTous auaptias),...... they entice in the Iusts of the flesh by lasciviousness those who are just escaping from them that live in error.”! A very similar passage occurs in St. Jude, but it is noticeable that, whereas St. Peter uses the future tense as though he were speaking propheti- cally, St. Jude has the present as though he witnessed the corrupt doings of the false teachers.2 Whether the Apocalypse belongs to this or to an earlier period is undecided. It alludes not unfrequently to heresies of this type, and the false doctrines are compared to the teaching of Balaam who caused the children of Israel “to eat things offered to idols and to commit fornica- tion”. This is the only book in the New Testament which mentions the sect of heretics called Nicolaitans.§ - epnel apaghe It has been long perceived that the Gnostic Sects, Sccts of Christian Gnostics are capable of classification under the different opinions of their teachers. We have already seen that on certain points they are all in agreement, but there are others on which the divergencies are considerable. The chief of these are, the character of the Demiurge or Creator, and the relation of the Jewish Law to the Christian dis- pensation. Mosheim adopts the first of these differences as the basis of his classification. He divides the Gnostics into Syrian and Alexandrian: the former, under the influence of Persia, regarding the Demiurge as an active principle of evil like Ahriman: the latter looking on matter as a passive but unwilling opponent of God, and the Demiurge as a being emanating from Him, and striving to bring the chaos of material existence into order.t Gieseler adopts Mosheim’s classification, but recognises a third class in Marcion and his followers, I. 1 Peter ii. 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 18. 2. Jude, 8—13. See Mayor on 11 Peter and Jude, pp. clxvii ff. . Apoc. ii. 2, 6,9, 13—15, 20, iii. 4,9. Swete, Apocalypse, p. xxi, See also Dobschutz, Life 2m the Primitive Church, pp. 224, 251 ff. 4- Mosheim, Commentaries, vol. I., sec. LXIV. 134 THE GNOSTIC SECTS. © [cH vin considering, no doubt, that his opposition to Judaism shews that this teacher belonged to a different school.* Neander? distinguishes between those who accepted and those who rejected the Jewish dispensation, ang divides the Gnostic systems thus: | Gnostics connected with | In conflict withJudaism, | Regarding Christianity Judaism, inclining to Paganism. | _ as completely new. Cerinthus Ophites Marcion Basilides Cainites Valentinus Carpocrates Baur adopted a threefold division ; the Heathen Gnostics, then the Marcionites or anti-Jewish Gnostics, and the Iudaizers, who he considered tried to reconcile the two earlier tendencies.? Bp. Westcott in his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels shews that the Gnostics represented the four different types of Christian teachers that existed in New Testament times. He regards Cerinthus and the Ebionites as representing in an extreme form the Jewish sympathies of St. Matthew and St. James. The Docetae in their preference for the Gospel of St. Mark stand for examples of the extreme followers of the school of St. Peter; Marcion’s teaching shews the tendency of the Pauline doctrine pushed beyond its legitimate logical conclusion; and Valentinus by his language proves himself to be imbued with the style but not the spirit of the Johannine literature.* If it were possible accurately to fix the date of each teacher of the Gnosis, it might prove the best means of classification. It is possible to shew that, whereas the earliest Gnostic teachers hardly took any account what- ever of Christianity and seemed unacquainted even with the history of Jesus, the later heretics, on the other hand, take the greatest interest in Christianity and shew an intimate acquaintance with its literature, history, and I. Gieseler, Ecclestastical History, vol. 1., p. 81 foll. Eng, Trans. (Philadelphia and London, 1843.) 2. Neander, Church History, vol. I1., pp. ant 3. Baur, Church History, vol. 11., pp. 32—4 4. Westcott, /xtroduction to the Study of the Guepali, ch. iv., p. 240. SCHEME OF VALENTINUS. Che Hby Spirit THE gre ‘Staurod SEE No A Ri ETS he Works of Achonotte. She ae ace So w fora by Chur gre jedt by (foous a eas The Demiowt; gos and Aus Ooroad, She J Pee hee. Settamthe Rinew of thie pwoorks. ° CH. vi.] GNOSTICISM AND THE CHURCH. 135 doctrines. Christianity thus gradually invaded the realms of the Gnosis, and after a long struggle subdued it to the service of the Church. ‘The history of the Gnosis, from the profane attempt of a Simon Magus to use the power of Christ for magical purposes to the time when St. Clement of Alexandria conceived the idea of the true Christian Gnostic, is a record of the way in which the Gospel consecrated the attempts of mankind to find out God and led them to the knowledge of the Truth through Jesus Christ. For it is impossible to regard the Gnostics either as mere impostors, or as hateful heretics who wilfully perverted the word of God. It appears even permissible to regard the Gnosticism of the second century rather as a precursor than a willing opponent of Christianity, and it is quite possible that through the defective systems of some of the teachers of the Gnosis many became Christians; as at a later time St. Augustine was a Manichaean before his baptism, and as in the middle ages many of the greatest Jewish Kabbalists entered the Church. The Ophites. The Ophites, whose opinions were pro- mulgated early in the second century, were according to Hippolytus the first to call themselves Gnostics.. We have two separate accounts of them, one by Hippolytus, the other by Irenaeus. The name Ophites, derived from é¢is ‘a serpent’, implies that they were worshippers of a serpent; and that this designation was not given by opponents is proved by the fact that they styled themselves Naaseni from the Hebrew wm (Nachash) a serpent. Their most striking tenet was that the serpent in the Old Testament, who beguiled Eve, was in reality a bene- ficent being, who raised mankind to the knowledge of good and evil. Hippolytus gives a long exposition of their views, taken from Ophite text-books which he had collected. In this, as is his wont, he labours to shew that the wisdom of the sect was borrowed entirely from the philosophers of Greece and the heathen mystics, 1. Hippolytus, v.,c. 6. King, Guostics and their Remains, p. 82. 136 HIPPOLYTUS ON THE OPHITES. [cH. vik astrologers, and magicians. He says “they make use of the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel according to the Egyptians,’’ and he represents them as explaining that the myths of antiquity, such as the mutilation of Atys and the story of Isis and Osiris, foreshadowed their doctrines, They seem to have had a wide knowledge of both the Old and the New Testament, and many of their explanations are extremely ingenious; for example, they interpreted the passage in which St. Paul, speaking of the abominations of the Heathen world, says that they work unseemliness,! as referring to that heavenly sublime felicity ‘‘the absence of all form which is the real source of every form.” Although Hippolytus devotes a large portion of his work to a description of this form of Gnostic error, and goes on to speak of the kindred sects of the Peratae and Sethians, he does not give us any very definite explana- tion on the subject of the real opinions of the Ophites, and we must turn to Irenaeus to obtain further particulars.’ Carpocrates was a Platonic philo- sopher at Alexandria. Like Marcion he was bitterly opposed to Judaism, and held that re- demption could only be found in emancipation from the powers that ruled the material world. He taught that ‘works’ were indifferent, and were good or bad in human opinion only. His followers pushed his theories to the greatest length, and like the Ophites and Cainites completely reversed the notions of good and evil. This sect was active in Rome during the time of Irenaeus, who refutes their theories at great length. Basilides, who is considered one of the best types of Egyptian Gnosticism, according to Hippolytus borrowed his system from Aristotle. This Father however hints at the truth when Carpocrates. Basilides. zr. Rom. i. 27, rhv doxnuocvvnv karepyavsuevor. 2. Irenaeus, Aaeres., bk. 1,, cc. 29—36. Irenaeus never calls the heretics described in these chapters Ophites, but Theodoret, who copies his description, gives them that title. See Smith and Wace’s Dict, Christian Biog., Article ‘Ophites’, by Dr. Salmon. For an account of the opinions of the Ophites, Basilides and Valentinus, see Appendix A. 3. Haer. 1., 93 ff. al * =< ’ ‘“ si . CH. VII.] VALENTINUS. 137 he says, after describing the heretical opinions of Basilides, “These then are the things which Basilides fables, who taught in Egypt, and having learned the wisdom of the Egyptians brought forth such fruits as these.” It seems from this that Hippolytus also regards the theory of Basilides as an adaptation of the esoteric doctrine of the Egyptian priesthood, and in this he is probably more correct than when heasserts that Basilides plagiarised Aristotle. From Basilides we are led naturally to Valentinus, another Egyptian Gnostic teacher, who may justly be termed the poet eee | othing can suggest more forcibl een ee othe deep gulf which divides the spirit of Christianity from that of Gnosticism, than the contrast between the bewildering intricacy of the system of Valentinus and the profound simplicity of the language of the Gospel of St. John, with which it has a seeming affinity. This complexity, however, was nevertheless the cause of the great popularity the doctrine of Valentinus enjoyed. It had the additional attraction of being eclectic, combining as it did a variety of Greek, Oriental, and Christian speculations.” It greatly resembles the system of Basilides, but is more elaborate, and the abstractions in the scheme of that teacher are personi- fied by Valentinus. The main point to be noticed is the adoption of the Platonic teaching that the perfect patterns or ideas of the things we see exist in the spiritual world above. The chief followers of Valentinus were, Secundus, Ptolemaeus, Marcus, Heracleon, Theodotus and Alex- ander. Bardesanes, the Syrian mystic, was his disciple. shee tes The two remaining systems of Gnostic Binoes. speculation are later in date than those previously mentioned, and differ from them in many respects. The questions which interested the earlier teachers are almost entirely ignored, and the Heathen elements of Gnostic thought fall into 1. King, Gnostics and their Remains, p. 70. 2. Irenaeus, Haeres., bk. 1. Hippolytus, vi.,cc. 16—32. Mansel, Gnostic Heretics, Lect. XII. 133 MARCION. 7 > [CH VIE the background. The doctrines of Marcion and his opponents, instead of being based on Greek or Oriental views, are taken professedly from Christian tradition and the Scriptures of the Church, and their object is to bring into prominence some particular aspect of Christian thought. Marcion! was a Christian by birth and education, the son of a bishop of Sinope, in Pontus, circ, 120 A.D. He came to Rome to propagate his opinions, and there became acquainted with a teacher like-minded with himself, one Cerdon a Syrian, who had, according to Irenaeus, taught in the imperial city during the pontificate of Hyginus (A.D. 139—142). He tried in vain to induce the clergy of Rome to receive him into. communion, and upon their refusal, founded a separate church. The earlier Gnostics had, like Basilides and Valentinus, been mystics and transcenden- talists; they had busied themselves with the solution of such inscrutable mysteries as the attributes of God, and His relation to the universe. Marcion on the other hand was of an eminently practical turn of mind, and mani- fested rather the characteristics of modern rationalists and sceptics than those of an ancient Gnostic. He set before himself certain practical problems for solution, and troubled himself but little with the mysteries of the invisible world. 465) Marcion’s difficulties may be summed ioutent! up by saying that they consisted in the : faet that (a) God, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is not, to all appearance, of the same nature as He, Whom Christ describes in the Gospel; and that (b) absolute justice is incompatible with perfect mercy. (a) The first of these difficulties is stated by Marcion in a book called Antitheseis or ‘Oppositions’, written to shew that the Old Testament is in opposition to the New. It is curiously modern in tone. If we may judge from the arguments quoted from it by Tertullian, ¥. Irenaeus, Haeres., bk. 1., c. 28 foll. Hippolytus, vit., cc. 17—18. Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, 1v. 4. Epiphanius, Praescri~., 30—42. Marcion presented a large sum of money to the Church of Rome, which was restored to him when he became a heretic. For the relation of Marcion to modern ideas, see my Christian Difficulties in the Second and Twentieth Centuries. Burkitt, Gospel Transmission. CH. vil.} JUSTICE AND EQUITY CONTRASTED. 139 it might have been issued by a sceptic of to-day. God, says Marcion, could not have been perfectly wise or perfectly good, or He would not have made man in His own image and then have allowed him to fall. His calling in the garden ‘Adam, where art thou?’ shews He did not know where Adam was. The command to Israel to spoil the Egyptians, and the choice of Saul, are acts unworthy of a perfect God. In short, Marcion collects all the passages of the Old Testament in which God seems to be represented unworthily, and draws as his conclusion that He Who inspired the Old Testament was not the true God. Marcion never said that the God of the Jews was an evil being. He recognised that the ruler of this world was actuated by just motives, but he accounted for the difficulties of the ancient Scriptures by asserting that the God therein described was limited in intelligence. (6) ‘The principle on which this Limited Intelli- gence! governed the world was one of strict and unde- viating justice, of the kind which Aristotle contrasts with equity, and consequently he only regarded with favour those men who observed the just though imperfect law given to his chosen people. Those who had not attained to the righteousness which is by the Law lay under the displeasure of the God of this world, although they were no less capable of good than the so-called just persons. It is easy to see in the foregoing a perversion of the teaching of St. Paul,? due doubtless to a desire to break 1. Mill, Three Essays on Religion. ‘Theism,’ Part v. (General Result.) ‘‘ The indication given by such evidence as there is points to the creation, not, indeed, of the universe, but of the present order of it, by an Intelligent Mind, whose power over the materials was not absolute, whose love for his creatures was not his sole actuating inducement, but who, nevertheless, desired their good. The notion of a providential govern- ment by an Omnipotent Being for the good of his creatures must be entirely dismissed.” The ‘Intelligent Mind’ of John Stuart Mill and Marcion’s ‘God of the Jews’ are not entirely unlike. 2. ‘*Marcion was the only Gentile Christian (of the first century and a half) who really understood Paul, and even he misunderstood him: the rest never got beyond the appropriation of particular Pauline sayings and exhibited no comprehension especially of the Theology of the Apostle. 1 This remark of Harnack’s (History of Dogma, English Translation, p. 89) 140 CANON OF MARCION. (CH. Vie entirely from the Jewish ideas which influenced Christian theology. This is the more apparent when we examine Marcion’s theory of redemption. His Gnostic tendencies exhibit themselves in his view that redemption is the imparting of a higher knowledge, a redemption not from sin but from ignorance. According to Marcion, Christ appeared suddenly—the record of His birth and infancy being purely fabulous—in the synagogue at Capernaum in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and proclaimed the true God. The God of this world, being angry, stirred up the Jews to crucify Him. Marcion taught that as Christ’s appearance on earth was entirely unreal, He did not actually die, though His seeming sufferings had a purpose in teaching mankind to despise death and pain. After His Resurrection Christ taught the truth to the Demiurge, and to St. Paul, the only preacher of the genuine Gospel. Marcion admitted the doctrine of the descent into hell, but offered a very strange explanation of Christ’s preaching to the spirits in prison, spoken of by St. Peter! He held that those who, like Cain, Esau, and Saul, were condemned in the Old ‘Testament, received Christ with joy, whilst those whom the God of this world had rewarded remained satisfied with the happiness of Abraham’s bosom. Like other Gnostics, Marcion divided humanity into ‘spiritual, psychical, and carnal, but unlike some of his predecessors he insisted upon the most rigid purity of life, and regarded martyr- dom with at least as much reverence as the orthodox teachers of the Church. But Marcion has other claims on our attention: he is the first rationalistic critic, a forerunner of the modern school of ‘higher criticism’. Unfortunately for his reputation, he yielded to the temptation, into which other critics have fallen, of pronouncing all passages which did not square with his theory to be either spurious or corrupt. As two-thirds of the New Testament was opposed to Marcion’s doctrine, he rejected all except the writings of St. Luke and St. Paul. Of these he only accepted a mutilated edition of is one which, even though we may disagree with it, we must recognise as weighty and significant. See also Cruttwell, Zarly Christian Literature. x. 1 Peter iii. 19. CH, VII.] JUDAIZING GNOSTICS, 141 St. Luke’s Gospel, which he subjected to a very thorough ' revision, and ten Epistles of St. Paul. It is a remarkable fact that Marcion refused to acknowledge the genuine- ness of the Pastoral Epistles, and that he declared that the letter to the Ephesians was addressed to the Laodiceans.t Dean Mansel quotes a few of Marcion’s critical ‘improvements’, of which one example will suffice. The words, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail,’ become “It is easier for the heaven and earth and for the law and the prophets to fail, than for one tittle of the words of the Lord.”? The Christology of Marcion, as has been observed by Neander, closely resembles that which was soon afterwards taught by the Patripassians, but rejected by the Church.® It is not at all certain that his language does not imply that the supreme God Himself appeared on earth; and if this be so, Marcion in some degree forestalled the Patripassian doctrines of Noetus and Praxeas. As Tertullian’s five books against him testify, Marcion was considered by the early Fathers one of the most dangerous of the Gnostics. But one of his opponents, like him, fell under the im- putation of heresy, though it is not easy to say exactly what his errors were. Bardaisan, or Bardesanes* (A.D. 179), is mentioned by Eusebius as having been originally a disciple of Valentinus, whose teaching he abandoned for more orthodox opinions, without how- ever completely freeing himself from the taint of heresy. Bardaisan was a Syrian, a native of Edessa, and his Dialogue on Fate is one of the most original products of the Syriac-speaking Church.* oe The tendency which was most opposed Quisizing to Marcion’s teaching is found in the so-called Clementine Literature and in the Book of Elkesai. Here again, modern criticism Bardaisan. 1. Tertullian, adv, Mare., v., cc. 11 and 21. 2. Mansel, Gnostic Heretics, p. 207. St. Luke xvi. 17. 3. Neander, Church History, vol. 11., pp. 143—144. . For Bardaisan, the Syrian opponent of Marcion, see Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, Lect. v. 5. Euseb., &. £. iv. 30. Burkitt, Larly Lastern Christianity, Lect. v. . 142 »), CERINTHUS) cir. [CH. VIL. trenches on the domain of ancient Gnosticism, for whilst some scholars, with Marcion, consider that St. Paul was the true founder of Christian doctrine, others hold that the actual meaning of what was taught by Christ is found in such teachers as St. James and the Judaizing party of the Church alone. It must be observed that whenever ultra-Judaic tendencies appear they have the effect of diminishing the dignity of the person of the Redeemer. This may be seen by a cursory examination of Judaizing Gnosticism from the time of Cerinthus, the contemporary of St. John, to the latter portion of the second century.’ : Cerinthus? seems to have held the usual Gnostic theories of Creation, but he also taught that Jesus was a righteous man endowed with the Spirit of God. The Ebionites, further, considered that Jesus did not become the Christ till the Holy Spirit descended on Him at His baptism. The Ebionites professed to find this distinction between the man Jesus and the Aton Christ in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which bears somewhat the same relation to St. Matthew’s, as Marcion’s Gospel does to that according to St. Luke. We may see the same ten- dency of Judaic Christianity perverted by Gnostic ideas in the so-called Clementine writings. The two works ascribed to St. Clement of Cerinthus. The Clementine Literature. 1. For the question whether the Minim were Gnostics who had apostatised from Judaism see Friedlander, Dze worchristliche judiche Gnostictsmus. Herford, Chrestianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 365 ff. 2. Irenaeus, aer. 1. 26. Hippolytus, vil. 21, X. 17. 3. Bethune Baker, Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 63. Hort, Judazstic Christianzty, Lect. 11. Justin (Déal. c. Trypho, 47, 48) speaks of some Christians who keep the Law and would enforce it on all, and of others, who though they observe the Law do not regard it as binding on all. Irenaeus (adv. Haer. I. 22) is the first to call them Ebionaeans. He says they hold similar views to Cerinthus and Carpo- crates, and regards them as heretics. Origen (¢. Ce/sum, Vv. 61, 65) distinguishes two classes, and says they reject St. Paul. Eusebius (Azst. Eccl. 111. 27) also divides them into those who hold higher and lower conceptions of the person of Christ ; both insisting on the observance of the Law, but differing on the subject of the Virgin Birth. Epiphanius (adv. Haer. xxix, xxx) names these two classes respectively Ebionaeans and Nazaraeans, but it is more probable that he is mistaken, and that Nazaraean is the local and Ebionaean the ecclesiastical term for the Jewish Christians of Syria. They existed right up to the time of Jerome, who speaks of them as spread over the East (4. 112, 13). CH. Vu. | CLEMENTINE LITERATURE, 143 Rome, the Homilies and the Recognitions, are Christian romances belonging to the last half of the second century, probably both of them being abridgements of a lost work known by some such title as ‘The Travels of Peter’, ‘current early in the third century among the Elkesaites. Their importance lies in the fact that they are the basis of the theory that the Christian Church grew out of a compromise between Jewish and Gentile Christians, who had formerly been widely separated from one another. This view is set aside by Dean Mansel, who says of the Homilies, “In truth it is only a protest of one Gnostic school against another,—the Ebionite against the Marcionite,’* and a candid examination seems to shew that it is the really erroneous teaching of Marcion, and not the supposed heresy of St. Paul, that is combated. The Clementine writings are the protest of the ex- treme Jewish party against Paulinism as perverted by Marcion. The Clementine Homilies, twenty in number, are probably of an earlier date than the Recognitions. Both works are composed with considerable literary skill; the scene is cast in the Apostolic age. St. Peter is made to dispute with Simon Magus, the father of heresy, and Clement, a noble Roman, is present to hear the discus- sions. St.James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, is represented as the Head of the Church, to whom St. Peter submits his doctrine. Although St. Paul is not obscurely alluded to under the name of Simon Magus, it is Marcion’s errors which are condemned, especially his doctrine of the incompatibility of justice and mercy. The Gnosticism of the Clementine Literature is seen (a) in the Christology and (b) in the doctrine of Syzygies. Our Lord is repre- sented as the eighth great teacher, only greater in degree than His seven predecessors,—Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. The creation of the world is due to the expansion of the Monad into the Duad, i.e. God and His Wisdom. In this way successive pairs are multiplied, the first or male element being superior down to the time of the creation of man. After mt. Mansel, Gnostic Heretics, p. 229. 144 EFFECTS OF GNOSTICISM. (CH. vit. this the order is reversed, the second principle being the stronger and more true: thus Cain precedes Abel, false prophecy true prophecy, the Baptist the Christ, Simon’s false doctrine Peter’s true Gospel.? ° Results of Although Gnosticism was one of the Gnosticism in the worst dangers to which early Christianity Church, had been exposed, the contest had some (2, TAR ARON: salutary results on the development of the Faith. It is a noteworthy fact that the first com- mentator on a canonical Gospel, the first harmonist of the Evangelical narrative, and the first scholar to pronounce an opinion on the Canon, were not orthodox Christians but Gnostics. Heracleon, the Valentinian, wrote a com- mentary on St. John, to which Origen devotes much serious attention.2 Tatian the Encratite, the friend of Justin Martyr, composed the famous Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Gospels, the full text of which has now been discovered;* while despite his erroneous conclusions, Marcion deserves the credit of having first attempted to define the Canon of the New Testament. The impulse to explain, define, and understand the writings of the New Testament was due to Gnosticism, and to the opposition it aroused. In the face of the numerous forgeries, which were multiplied in support of the various doctrines of the Gnostic sects,* the Church © found it necessary to declare what writings were accepted by her as sacred. The most venerated names were pressed into the service of the heretics, and the Church was bound to pronounce what books she received as Scripture and what she rejected. A good illustration of the effects of Gnosticism in this direction is the vagueness with which Justin Martyr in the middle of the 1. Mansel, Gnostic Heretics. 2. Brooke, Fragments of Heracleon.. 3. For the Diatessaron of Tatian, see Cambridge Zexts and Studies. Bethune Baker, History of Christian Doctrine, p. 66. Hort, Judazstic Christianity, p. 211. Dict. Chr. Biog., Art. Tatianus. 4. Some of the heretical books mentioned by Eusebius are—The Gospel of Peter, #. #. 111. 3, condemned by Serapion, Bp. of Antioch, as heretical, vi. 12 ; the Gospels of Thomas and Matthias, and the Acts of Andrew and John, II. 25. Those mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment are, two Epistles to the Laodicenes and Alexandrians, forged in Paul’s mame to suit the heresy of Marcion. CH. V1l.] UNBROKEN DESCENT FROM APOSTLES. 145 second century speaks of the ‘Memoirs’ of the Apostles, and the care of Irenaeus to emphasise the fact that there can be only four Gospels. Midway between Justin and Irenaeus we have the distinction drawn between canonical and heretical books in the well-known Muratorian Fragment. | In emphasising the necessity for unity, (0) The Idea = as well as for watchfulness against Docetic ofa : Catholic Church.2 error, the Letters of Ignatius draw a com- parison between the bishop in each con- gregation and Christ in the Catholic Church. The standpoint of Christianity as opposed to Gnosticism was historical tradition. The churches in different places, founded by Apostles or Apostolic men, had preserved their teaching, whilst no Gnostic doctrine could boast unbroken descent from the public tradition of the Apostles of Christ. At most the sects claimed to possess a secret exposition of the Faith reserved only for the elect, and the existence of such was indignantly denied by the defenders of Apostolic doctrine. Of this the bishop was regarded as the custodian in every church, a view which contributed greatly to increase the influence of the episcopal order. We are actually given an instance of a Christian of enquiring mind visiting the different churches to see whether the Faith delivered by the Apostles was the same in every place. Hegesippus, writing in the middle of the second century, says that when he was at Rome he “composed a catalogue of bishops down to Anicetus” and adds that “in every 1. Irenaeus’ famous words about the impossibility of there being more than four Gospels are found Adv. Haer. 111. 11. The four climes of the world, the four winds of heaven, the four faces of the Cherubim, all prove that the Word of God gave us the Gospel in a fourfold form (rerpduoppor 7d evayyédor). 2. Since writing this paragraph I have read Dr. Harnack’s significant words: ‘‘Gnosticism was the acute secularization (Verweltlichung) of Christianity, and it began as soon as Christianity came in contact with the Greek mind. At first it was not heretical simply because there were no standards by which to try it......: the Canon was not yet formed; episcopacy was not yet established ; doth arose as safeguards against heresy.” Warnack, History of Dogma, \., p. 162. 3. Ep. to the Smyrnaecans, c. 8, brov bv avy 6 émloxomos, éxet rd ®rH00s Ecrw, Wowep Srov by 7 Xpicrds Ingois éxet 4 kadodcxh éxxrnola, K 146 WRITERS AGAINST GNOSTICS. (cH. Vil. succession and in every city that is held which is preached by the Law and the Prophets and the Lord.’”* eysitens aekedt _ Justin Martyr is the earliest Catholic Gnosties:; | Writer against Gnosticism. According to Justin Martyr, [Eusebius this Father wrote a work against 100-165 A.D.; his contemporary, the heresiarch Marcion, in which he alludes to another book written by himself “against all the heresies that have existed.’ | | : Irenaeus, Irenaeus possessed an incalculable ad- cir.133—203 4.D.; vantage over his opponents in being the direct representative of the school of St. John. Though the heretical teachers declared that they taught the secret doctrine of the Apostles, none of them were able to prove that they were teaching the ancient belief of the Church. Irenaeus, on the contrary, at the close of the second century could trace his creed through Polycarp to St. John. To this advantage was added a knowledge of the various Gnostic systems. Irenaeus, who had lectured on heresiology at Rome, published his great work in five books between a.p. 182—188, when he was bishop of Lyons. He begins with a description of the teaching of a certain Ptolemaeus, a follower of Valentinus. After this he gives a summary of the uniform teaching of the Catholic Church, con- trasting it with the diversity of the Gnostic doctrines. Irenaeus naturally attaches the highest importance to tradition, and cites that of Rome and Asia against the. false traditions of his opponents. He lays much stress on the unity of the Old and New dispensations.® Irenaeus’ book was translated into Latin, probably before the end of the second century, as the Latin version was in the hands of Tertullian, the famous African opponent of Gnosticism.‘ 1; Euseb., . £. tv. 22. So Bishop Lightfoot ; but the meaning of yevduevos ev ‘Paiyn Siadoyhv éromnodunv péxpis “Amkyrov is not very certain. It may be ‘‘I remained at Rome, &c.” and a reading d:arpiByy has been suggested by Valesius and adopted by Heinischen. (See the note in the Nicene and Post-Nicene series 2% /oco.) 2. See Euseb., H. £. 1v. 11 and 18, for lists of Justin’s works. A fuller account of Justin Martyr will be found on p, 158. 3. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, pp. 240—261. 4. This however is disputed by Hort, who dates the Latin version CH. VII. ] TERTULLIAN ON HERESY. 147 Gia Aa Tertullian tries, as is his wont, to treat cir.160-240 a.p. the matter as a lawyer; his Prescription! ’ against heretics being an attempt to shew that the heretics have no case. He brings six arguments forward to prove his point: 1. Perverse disputings are forbidden by St. Paul. 2. Heretics either resist or corrupt the Scriptures. 3. The Faith was committed by the Apostles to their successors. 4. The truth of the Catholic Faith is proved (a) by its unity, (b) by its antiquity. 5. No heretics have a line of bishops going back to the Apostolic age. 6. The earliest heretics were condemned by the Apostles. It will be seen that Tertullian’s method is more suited to win a verdict in court than to convince the mind of an enquirer, and this is especially manifest in his treatment of Scripture. ‘“‘Irenaeus,’’ says Dean Mansel, “ while insisting on the Church’s rule of faith expresses his conviction that this rule may be obtained by the sound independent exposition of Holy Writ, az well as by tradition.” According to Tertullian, Scripture is the property of the Church alone, and heretics are incapable of explaining it at all. At the same time Tertullian never asserts that the Church has an authoritative tradition differing from Scripture.” as late as the fourth century. The most important book of Irenaeus is the third, in which he states the case for the Church. See especially c. 3 on Apostolic tradition, c. 11 on the number of the Gospels, c. 14 where the idea that the Apostles taught a Disciplina Arcani is scouted. 1. Praescrtptzo in its legal sense meant ‘‘a clause prefixed to the ‘intentio’ of a ‘formula’, for the purpose of limiting the scope of an enquiry (excluding points which would otherwise have been left open for discussion before the ‘judex’), and at the time when Tertullian wrote it was used only of the plaintiff.” Bethune Baker, Hist. of Chris. Doctrine, p- 57, note 3. Mansel, Grostéc Herestes, p. 251. 2. Mansel, /ézd., p. 253: this author refers to Iren., II., c. 27, §§ 1,23;c. 28,§ 1. Dr. Hort in hissix Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers calls Tertullian’s de Praescriptione Haereticorum, not without justice, ‘a most plausible and mischievous book,’”’ but its historical value is rather increased than lessened by the defective taste and argument of the author, as it appears to me to give a just idea of popular prejudice against heresy in the Church at the close of the second century. The reply to the argument of the heretics from the words ‘‘Seek and ye shall find” is so framed as to preclude all further enquiry. (cc. 8—11.) All philosophy is said to be evil ; ‘* What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (c. 7.) Heretics are not to K2 148 WORK OF HIPPOLYTUS AND CLEMENT. (cH. vil The Philosophumena or Refutation of 4. pemagee Ai all the Heresies, once ascribed to Origen, c is now attributed to the great Roman scholar Hippolytus, who, though a zealous defender of the doctrine of the Church, like Tertullian seems to have been unable to agree with Catholic practice.’ This Father bases his work on Irenaeus and displays great erudition in shewing that the Gnostic systems are mere rechauffés of pagan philosophy without even the merit of originality. But in the age of Hippolytus (a.p. 220) the great effort of Gnosticism had been made, and the tide had begun to ebb. Though Clement flourished a little fiement of before Hippolytus, his name is placed cir, 155-220 A.D. last on the list of Christian champions against Gnosticism, because to him and to his School we owe the phrase which gave it a death-blow. The weakness of the Catholic position lay in the neglect of philosophy, which in the ancient world was regarded much in the same way as we look upon scientific research. The Gnostic, on the other hand, tried to reconcile Christianity and philosophy, and endeavoured thereby to provide a religion for educated men. Clement and the Alexandrians boldly assumed the appellation of Gnostics, and professed to teach the true Christian Gnosis in opposition to the false. They based their knowledge on faith, and held that belief, instead of being (as the false Gnostics maintained) the virtue of the ignorant, was the means by which mankind arrived at the true knowledge. Clement in support of his position quotes the Septuagint? “Except ye believe ye be admitted to any discussion out of the Scriptures. (c. 15.) The notes of a true Church are however ‘‘brotherhood and the bond (contesseratio) of hospitality’. (c. 20.) The fact that the Faith is one in so many churches is a strong argument for its original unity. (c. 28.) The heretical sects have no order or discipline—‘‘ The majority of them have not even churches.” A man who is a bishop one day may be a deacon the next. (cc. 41, 42.) The treatise is characterised by the usual impetuosity of this violent writer, relieved by some vigorous appeals to common sense and to the religious instinct of mankind. 1. Hippolytus’ position in the Church is discussed at length below in Chap. x1. 2. Isa. vii. 9 (LXX), ¢dv uh micredonre ove ph ourATeE. \ CH. VIL] THE CHRISTIAN GNOSTIC. 149 shall in no wise understand.”’ He bases his antagonism to the pretended Gnostics (1) on their denial of man’s free will and consequent perversion of the moral relation of man to God, (2) on their condemnation of the material creation, resulting in hostility to marriage whereby man is multiplied! In order to illustrate his theory, Clement, in his Stvomateis, sketches the ideal Christian Gnostic; the wise man enriched with know- ledge, yet established in the Faith. This did much to break the spell of Gnosticism, for when the Church threw open her doors to men of learning, the attractions of error gradually lost their power. That so formidable an enemy as Gnosticism should have been repulsed, is no small testimony to the latent vigour of early Catholic Christianity.’ : The Gnosticism of the first two cen- a turies of our era did not aim at being other than a secret creed held by the more enlightened members of the Church. The Gnostic teachers desired no more than to instruct a few privileged persons in their esoteric doctrines. “Towards the close of the third century, however, a new Gnosticism, or more correctly a new religion, arose in the doctrine of Manes.* There are two narratives of the origin of the Manichaean religion—the Christian, and the Persian. The former has come to us in an account of a disputation between Manes and Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia. The date of the document is a.p. 320; it was written in Syriac, and is preserved in a very corrupt Latin version. It relates how Scythianus, a Saracen merchant in the age of the Apostles, devoted his latter days to study, and left a disciple called Terebinthus, who took the name of Buddas Terebinthus, settled at Babylon, professed to have been born of a virgin, and embodied the doctrine he had learned from I. Mansel, Guostic Herestes, Lect. XV. 2. For Clement of Alexandria, consult Prof. Bigg’s Bampton Lectures, ‘The Christian Platonists of Alexandria.’ See also Fisher, Hzst. of Christian Doctrine, p. 94. 3. Eusebius (#. Z. vil. 31) derives the name Manes from palyouas and speaks of him in his short notice as a ‘‘madman named from the demoniacal heresy.” See note iz /oco in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 150 HISTORY OF MANES, | [cH. VIL. Scythianus in four books, which came into the possession of a freed slave called Cubricus. Cubricus took the name of Manes (the vessel),' and taught the new religion in Persia. As he failed to heal the king’s son he was imprisoned, but escaped. He then studied the Scriptures, and disseminated his views among the Christians, At last he was seized by the Persian king and flayed alive. The Persian documents of the eighth or ninth century tell a different tale, which is considered to be more probable than the Christian narrative. They relate that Manes, a member of a Persian family, had been carefully trained by his father, Fatak, in the principles of the Mandaean or Elkesaite sect of Ebionite Gnostics, He appeared at the court of Shahpoor I, in a.p. 242, but his doctrine met with no favour, so he left the Persian dominions and spent thirty years in missionary work. He returned at the end of Shahpoor’s reign, about A.D. 272, and won the support of Hormuzd the king’s brother and successor. Bahran (Varanes), who reigned after Hormuzd, had him flayed alive as a heretic. (A.D. 276.) The Manichaean system is pure dualism. In its [Eastern form it approximates to Parseeism, in its Western to Christianity. It teaches that there is a realm of darkness and a realm of light. Satan, the lord of the former, invaded the latter. The First Man was created to repel Satan, but was defeated by him and his angels. ‘The Living Spirit delivered him and vanquished the daemons. But in the warfare a portion of light had been absorbed by matter. This is the Jesus patibilis, the vids avOpemov éumabys, or Soul of the World. Out of the remnants of the light, which he jad saved, the Living Spirit made the Sun and Moon, and settled the First Man, the vids dvOpw7ov azraOys, in them. The work of these luminaries is to free the Jesus patibilis from Matter. The twelve signs of the Zodiac form a wheel with twelve buckets to collect the imprisoned light and to empty it into the new Moon, who in her turn pours the light she has received into the Sun. — Satan, to prevent the escape of the light, made Adam © 1. King, Gnostic Gems, p. 42. CH, VII. ] THE FESUS PATIBILIS, — 15! and Eve, whom he tempted to sin in order to imprison. the luminous particles more closely in the material world. To assist in their liberation the Jesus impatibilis descended to earth in human form to instruct mankind as to the means of redemption. These doctrines were naturally bound up with the practice of asceticism. The slaughter of animals was forbidden to all: the more advanced disciples were not allowed to injure either plant or animal life; and to the highest order all carnal] intercourse, and indeed all sensual pleasure, was entirely interdicted. The souls of those who observed all these pre- cepts were at death instantly liberated from the material world. In the case of the rest of mankind purification was needed by transmigration into plants, animals, or men. Manes gave himself out to be the Paraclete, and did not accept the Old Testament, or any of the New except the teaching of St. Paul. The Manichaean church was most carefully organized. There was a sort of Pope or Imaun residing at Babylon, twelve magistri, seventy-two bishops, priests, deacons, elect, and hearers. The hearers ministered to the elect, who were not permitted to destroy even vegetable life.} The heresy spread with extraordinary rapidity in spite of the fear and detestation it inspired among Pagans, Christians, and Magians. The Magians in Persia did all in their power to destroy it by persecution. Diocletian (a.p. 284—305), or his successors in 308,” ordered the proconsul of Africa to burn the leaders of the sect. Almost all of the Christian emperors passed laws against the Manichaeans. Yet the system possessed great attrac- tions: that Augustine was at one time a hearer is well known.’ The Paulicians, so formidable in Bulgaria in the eighth and ninth centuries, the Children of the Sun in the tenth, the Euchites and Bogomili in the eleventh 1. I have taken my account of the Manichaean system from Kurtz, Church History, vol. 1,, § 29. King’s Gunostics and their Remains should be consulted, and a most suggestive account of the attitude of the Manichaeans towards Christianity is found in Mozley’s Lectures on the Old Testament. See also Milman, Ast. of Christianity, vol. 1.3 Rawlinson, Seventh Oriental Monarchy, ch. iv. For an account of the Oriental lives of Manes, Dict, Chr. Biog., Art. ‘Manes’, vol. III., p. 7936. 2. Dr. Mason in his Persecution of Diocletian places the Marichaea* *dict after the abdication of Diocletian, A.D. 305. 3. For Augustine and the Manichaeans see Chap. XIX. 152 VITALITY OF MANICHAEISM. __[cu. vil. and twelfth centuries, attest the vitality of dualism in the Eastern empire. In Western mediaeval Europe the name of Manichee was full of nameless terror, the accusation of Manichaeism being the most serious that. could be made. The fear and hatred which teaching akin to that of Manes inspired provoked the war against the Albigenses,! and was the means employed to bring discredit upon the Knights Templars in the early part of the fourteenth century. Yet the very bitterest opponents of the system were in a measure tainted by its influence, and it is a matter for consideration how far the practice of monastic asceticism, and the doctrine of predestination—which divides men into two classes, the one born to salvation, the other to damnation—are due to the teaching, not of-the Apostles, but of the heretic Manes. 1. Milman, Azst. Lat. Christianity, vol. V., p. 392 foll. & King, Guostics and their Remains, p. 401, .. i 3 ; ae es ee * a ae ee, eee eee CHAPTER VIII. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES. Tue struggle with Gnosticism resulted in the beginning of scientific Theology within the Church. The age of witnessing Christianity was succeeded by a period of investigation. The facts of the Gospel history no longer sufficed, and it became necessary to formulate the principles which underlay them. The attempts of the Gnostics to explain Christianity in accordance with the ideas of Greek philosophy or Oriental theosophy forced the orthodox doctors of the Church to define their belief with care and precision. At first, however, we cannot fail to notice that accurate theological definitions were extremely tare. The time for drawing up formal creeds stating the exact limits of belief was still distant, and great freedom of expression was permitted to the Christian theologians. ‘The creed of the Church was very simple, professing no more than a belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.!_ As a natural consequence there arose a certain confusion of thought as to the relation of the three Persons of the Trinity to one another. In addition to this, the close of the second and the first fifty years of the third century were characterised by great intellectual freedom. Philosophy had made men very tolerant in matters of opinion, and the Church allowed great liberty in the exercise of the mind upon the highest problems of religion. It is impossible not to admire the breadth of Christian liberality, 1. For early baptismal creeds see Hahn, Symdo/e, p. 19, who refers his readers to Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica, p. 106. 154 THE IDEA OF GOD. [eH, VILL which allowed such thinkers as Origen full scope for the most daring flights of speculation, and warmly acknowledged that the truths declared by the philo- sophers of antiquity were taught by the Wisdom of God. Such being the character of the second and third centuries, we shall look in vain if we expect to find in the theologians of the period such clear exponents of dogma as the writers of the fourth century. It was not until they had learned by the repeated misinter- pretations of heretics the need of extreme care in defining religious opinions, that the Fathers expressed themselves in terms of scrupulous accuracy. As yet, they were only feeling their way into the domains of theology, and their language betrays at times an ignorance of the pitfalls by which they were surrounded, At the same time the doctrine of the fourth century declared in terms of scientific accuracy no more than was generally accepted by believers between a.p. 150 and 250, and it was merely a natural development of the views which were more crudely expressed in the earlier days of the Church. Nevertheless we must bear in mind that much of the language of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and especially Origen, could not have been employed by an orthodox Father of a later age. . Among primitive peoples God is con- Difficulty of ceived as a being resembling man in expressing the ; idea of God. almost every respect. As long as the _ limitations of time and space are applied to the idea of God, the mind readily conceives Him as a personal being; but once the notions of His eternity, infinity and omniscience are introduced, there is a tendency to regard Him as a mere abstraction. Thus the personal God is displaced by some philo- sophical conception; either as identifying Him with and manifested in the universe—the Pantheistic notion —or as completely isolating Him from the visible q world. This difficulty was very acutely felt by the — Jews of the Graeco-Roman age. The Lxx, for example, tried to soften the anthropomorphic conception of — God in the Old Testament by modifying such passages — a CH. VIII.] THE TARGUM AND PHILO, 155 as “Enoch walked with God”, “ They saw the God of Israel”, by their renderings ‘‘Enoch pleased God”, “They saw the place where the Lord stood”. The Targum, or Aramaic version of the Scrip- ture, advanced a step farther. Instead of making God act upon the world directly, the Targum of Onkelos makes God act by means of His Memra or Word, which thus became almost personified. This isa development of the idea of the Divine Wisdom, which, in the Proverbs and later Jewish literature of similar character, is often described as God’s assessor at tht time of the Creation. The famous passage in the eighth chapter of Proverbs regards Wisdom as the principle of the world laid down by God, and not as a creature like the things of the world, Wisdom coming forth from God being on the contrary a presupposition of the world’s creation.’ The tendencies displayed in the Lxx and Targums were further developed by Philo, the great Alexandrian Platonist of the first century. In his system o wy of the translators was altered into the Platonic ro év,2 and the Memra under the name of the Logos became identified with that Mind which, according to Greek ideas, was the manifestation of the Supreme God. Philo uses this word in its twofold sense of reason and speech. As the former, or (in Philo’s phrase) as the Immanent Word (Aoyos évdideros), it abode in God. When God manifested Himself in creation the Divine Logos went forth and became the revealed Word (Aoyos mpodopixos).? By the Logos alone God is known to man; it was by this means that He communicated with the patriarchs in the Old Testa- ment. Philo does not attempt a closer definition. Philo’s doctrine of the Logos. 1. Ochler, Theology of the Old Test., vol. 1., p. 439. (Clark’s Theol. Library.) See Prov. viii, 22 foll., a most important passage, frequently quoted by the Christians as a proof of our Lord’s perfect union with His Father. Davidson, Theology of the Old Test., pp. 106 ff. 2. Gwatkin, Arians, p. 12. Ueberweg, A7st. Przl., vol. 1., p. 230. Philo does not actually regard the Logos as a Being separated from God. As man’s thought is immanent till it is declared in words, so it is with the ‘ Logos’ or Mind of God. 156 THE DIVINE NATURE OF CHRIST. [cH. vu. At one time he speaks of the Logos as a Being distinct from God under the figure of a Son, and also as a devtepos Geos, at another as merely the manifestation of the Divine Mind. This confusion of ideas was felt by Christian theologians, some of whom fell into the error of making the Logos an inferior God, whilst others went to the opposite extreme in declaring that God’s Word had no personal existence but was merely a manifestation of His nature. The Christian religion holds fast to sie objet object the doctrine of the spirituality and per- creltey fection of God, and denies that He is comprehensible by the human under- standing. It agrees with Philo in making the Logos the means of the revelation of the Father to man; but goes farther in declaring that the Word of God was revealed in man by Jesus Christ. Herein lies part of the secret of the success of Christian theology. With singular felicity, its theory of the conjunction of the Divine and human natures, each preserving separate attributes, enabled the mind to preserve in- violate the pure conception of the Deity, and yet to approximate it, as it were, to human interests ae sympathies.’ All who were prepared to accept Christianity recog nised that Christ had manifested God to man, and that in His Person dwelt a spirit which came direct from the inmost sphere of the Divine. Our Lord’s Divinity was as fixed an axiom of Christianity as the unity of God.’ The difficulty lay in defining precisely wherein this Divinity was situated. Was it the Divine Spirit abiding in the man Jesus, or was the Incarnation a mere figure under which God was revealed to man? ‘The Ebionites adopted the former solution of the difficulty; the Docetics the latter. But the Christian Church was unable to accept either view. She at once recognised the important truth that if she sacrificed the doctrine of the Incarnation 1. Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, Lecture 11. Hastings, Dect. of the Bible (extra volume), Art. ‘Philo’, p. 206. Drummond, Pio Judaeus. 2. Milman, Hest. of Christianity, vol. 11., p. 353. 3 Gwatkin. Arians, p. 5. en ne ee CH. VIII. | THE CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS. 157 all was lost. The Ebionite idea of a deified man was a reaction to the gods of polytheism, whilst the Docetic theory was a step back to pantheism.! The only reply to Gnosticism was in the words of St. John; “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” ' The Apologists were in a sense the The Apologists first Christian theologians, as it was their _ the object to present Christianity to the cul- Christian doctrine tured world as a philosophy, and to °8°°* convince outsiders that it was the highest wisdom and absolute truth. They differed from the Gnostics by dwelling on the historical and essentially moral character, and thus they not only successfully appealed to the common sense of intelligent men of the age, but also avoided hurting the susceptibilities of the upholders of orthodox tradition. Their doctrine of the Logos, borrowed from Philo and St. John, is the beginning of scientific theology within the pale of the Church.? The anonymous Letter to Diognetus has (a) The Letter been well considered to be a suitable Dibguetus: introduction to the study of Greek Theo- logy in the Church.’ It consists of two loosely connected portions. Of these the first is evidently distinct from the conclusion, its tone being essentially Greek, whilst that of the second is Alexandrian. Bp. Westcott considers that the first part belongs to a very early age of the Church, not later than the reign of Trajan, A.D. 117. Even the concluding fragment he believes to be not later than the close of the first half of the second century. The Hellenic culture of the writer is obvious in his Christology, where he thus describes the advent of the Redeemer: “ The Almighty, Himself the Creator of the universe,...... has established in men’s hearts the Truth and the Logos, since He sent 1, Gwatkin, Ardans, p. 8. 2. Harnack, AZstory of Dogma, vol. 11., p. 170, Eng. Transl. See also Illingworth, 7ze Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 88. 3. The Continuity of Christian Thought, by A. V. G. Allen, D.D. Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, p. 68. 4. Westcott, Azstory of the Canon, p. 88. The epistle is printed in Bp. Lightfoot’s Ajostolic Hathers (p. 488), where it is assigned to the middle of the second century. 158 JUSTIN MARTYR. ~ (cH. vil. not, as some insinuate, a servant, or angel, or prince, but the Artificer and Creator of the universe Himself....... Him hath He sent to them; but for what? to terrify, Him He sent to men, to deliver, not to destroy.”! The author finds the evidence of the Incarnation not in miracles but in its power over men’s hearts. Notwithstanding a certain ambiguity of such words as “ Himself revealed Himself,’’? the tone of the letter recognises a distinction between God and the Logos.* But it has been well said in reference to much of the context “We probably ought, however, to recognise in such a passage as this, addressed to a heathen, a Stoic philosopher, an eloquent amplification of the majesty of the messenger and of his intimate connexion with the eternal universe, rather than the evidence that the writer was not familiar with the conception of the immanent relations of the Logos and the Father in the inner being of the Godhead.” About the same time we have in Justin Martyr an example of philosophy satis- fying its higher cravings by the adoption of Christianity. The account of Justin’s conversion presents a picture of the world of educated thought in the second century.» By birth a Greek, he was a native of Flavia Neapolis, the city founded by Vespasian on the site of the ancient Sychem. He began his search for truth in the old philosophical schools. His first master was a Stoic, who affirmed that a knowledge of God was unnecessary. This made Justin leave him, and go toa Peripatetic philosopher, who was so covetous about his fees, that his would-be disciple began to doubt whether he was a philosopher at all. He next applied to a Pythagorean, but finding that a knowledge of Music, Astronomy, and Geometry was necessary before he could attend his lectures, he betook himself to a (6) Justin Martyr, circa 100—165; 1. Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, vol. 1., p. 261. (Clark’s ~ Foreign Theol. Library.) 2. Allen, of. cz. Dorner, of. czt., p. 263. Bethune Baker, Aistory of Christian Doctrine, p. 123. Allen, of. cét., p. 27. ble a eas . CH, VIN] JUSTIN AND THE LOGOS. 159 Platonist, with whom he fared better and considered himself in a fair way to attain to a knowledge of God. It was at this time that he met an ancient and venerable man who led him from Plato to the Prophets, from metaphysics to faith in Christ. Thus Justin, in his own words, “found Christianity to be the only philosophy that is sure, and suited to man’s wants”.} As a Christian, he retained his philosopher’s cloak, and travelled about propagating his opinions. There is - truth in Eusebius’ description of him as “an ambassador of the Divine Word in the guise of a philosopher”? It was at Ephesus that Justin held his famous Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in which he endeavoured to prove that, whenever God is said in the Old Testament to have appeared to the patriarchs, it was in fact the Logos.’ He also set up a kind of school at Rome, in which he laboured to satisfy the doubts of the enquiring heathen. Justin was a very voluminous writer, but his only undisputed works now extant are the two Apologies and his Dialogue with Trypho. If we may add the Cohortatio ad Graecos, Justin must also have taught at Alexandria.* He engaged ina public disputation with the Cynic, Crescens, his chief heathen opponent, and this brought about his martyrdom, Ania. 105,° Justin considered the Divine Logos to have been the means by which God instructed the whole world. Not only the Jewish Patriarchs, but those Greek philosophers who lived according to reason, were taught by the Word of God. Indeed Justin is bold enough to say of the latter that they were Christians, even though reported to be atheists.© This large-minded view of the Divine Logos was no doubt due to the combined influence of Justin’s Greek birth and education and his Samaritan environment, which enabled him to look upon the ancient history of Israel and the philosophy of Greece 1. Dialogue with Trypho, cc. ii., ill. Westcott, History of the Canon, pp. 96, 97. 2. Euseb., ZH. £. tv. 11, § 8. Kaye, Justin Martyr, p. 39. Westcott, of. czz., p. 97, note 3. Euseb., H. £Z. Iv. 16. Kaye (Justin Martyr, p. 52) quotes Afo/. 1., p. 83, B. Pin bys 160 JUSTIN'S DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. [cx. vim. with equal impartiality. He is, in fact, the first Christian writer who uses the word Logos in its double sense of veason as applied to philosophy, and of the Word as applied to revelation. The Logos dwelt in Christ as it never did in man. Human reason is a mere o7réppa or piunua of the primal Logos, but in Christ the All of reason abode in full perfection.} Justin fully acknowledges the humanity of our Lord, and speaks of Him as perfect Man without sin, whose doctrine was superior to all human teaching because of the perfection of His nature. He dwells much on the facts relating to our Saviour’s life on earth, and asserts, in terms that recall the Apostolic writings, that we are purified by Christ’s blood. But his Christology neces- sarily lacks the precision of dogmatic formularies. In isolating the Father from the world, and making the Logos the sole means by which He is known, Justin falls sometimes into the error of making the Word identical with God, thereby leaning towards opinions afterwards formulated by Sabellius; on the other hand, when he tries to avoid this error by giving the Word a distinct personality (v7oatacis), he seems almost to countenance the hypothesis that there are two Gods. Thus the two tendencies, subsequently condemned as heretical, are manifested in this Father; and they shew that the greatest care would be necessary to avoid falling into one or the other of these opposite extremes of thought in the attempt to formulate the doctrine of the Logos. Justin, in fact, contributed little to the solution of the difficult problem of maintaining the divinity and per- sonality of the Logos without breaking the unity of the Godhead.* is Dorner, of. cit., pp. 264—266. Kaye, of. cét., p. 53. a3 a .| ‘ CH. vil.) BELIEF IN THE MILLENNIUM. 177 The prophecy that the martyrs and | those who had not worshipped the Beast should rise from the dead and reign on earth with Christ for a thousand years’ was interpreted literally, and had a very powerful hold on the Christian mind, especially in Asia. It was held by Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and the Montanists. The Alexandrian Fathers had a strong objection to these views, con- sidering them to be gross and sensual in the extreme. Clement, for example, is of opinion that the idea 1s irrational because Christ is spiritually here in all His fulness. Eusebius quotes from Caius, who endeavoured to disparage this Millennial teaching by making the heretic Cerinthus its author.’ But the great opponent of Millennial hopes was the wise and amiable Dionysius of Alexandria. Nepos, a bishop of the nome Arsinoe in Egypt, had composed a work, called ‘the Refutation of the Allegorists’ ("EXeyxos Tav adAnyopioTaov), against those who denied the litera! interpretation of the Millen- nial promises in the Apocalypse. A party was formed, Millenarianism. suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ductisunt. Et quoniam injuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus Dei omnipotentis, a/enavit nos contra naturam, suos proprios nos faciens discipulos, potens in omnibus Dei Verbum; et non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quae sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quem- admodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quae non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem, et non vim inferentem, accipere quae vellet; ut neque quod est justum confringeretur, neque antiqua plasmatio Dei deperiret.” I. Apoc. xx. 4. 2. Allen, of. cét., p. 66. 3. Harnack, of. czt., vol. 11., p. 300. Dr. Harnack regards the success of the learned Eastern Fathers over Chiliasm as a significant proof that the laity were falling under the tutelage of the clergy. ‘‘ The religion they understood was taken from them (the ‘simplices et idiotae’), and they received in turn a faith they could not understand ; in other words, the old faith and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the authority of a mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation or decay of Chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of the Christianity of the East.” Eusebius (2. &. 111. 28) quotes from the Disputation of Caius, who does not say plainly that Cerinthus was the author of the Apocalypse, but that he found support for his views in revelations, which he pretends were written by the great Apostle. For Caius see the note on Euseb., H. &. 11, 25,§ 7 in the Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers. M 178 DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. [cH. vil. after the death of Nepos, headed by Coracion a presbyter, and it appeared probable that a serious schism would distract the Church. Dionysius, with the Christian forbearance which characterised him, went in person to endeavour to convince Coracion and his adherents. He conciliated all by the respect with which he spoke of Nepos, and ended by persuading Coracion to confess his error. Dionysius argued that the Apocalypse was not the work of John the son of Zebedee, but of John the Presbyter, who is mentioned by Papias.1 The belief in a Millennium was a survival of the old Jewish expectation of a visible kingdom of the Messiah, but it contained the germs of two important ideas. One is that the reign of Christ on earth is not a mere chimera, but an end for which all Christians are bound to strive. The other is that the Millennium as foretold in the Apocalypse is a time for preparation for the second Resurrection. This paved the way for the theory of an intermediate state after death. The Montanists held firmly to the belief of a purification of the soul after death, and even Clement of Alexandria speaks of a purifying fire for those who have lived ill. From this germ the mediaeval doctrine of Purgatory was destined to grow.’ The doctrine of the Resurrection was generally stated at this time in a material- istic form, though the Fathers of Alexandria as usual take a spiritual view of this great mystery. Clement held that “the resurrection was the standing up of all things to immortal life; it was not the same body, but a reclothing in some higher form of the purified spirit.”® Origen, in his reply to the taunt of Celsus* that the Christian hope of rising out of the ground at the last day is one worthy of worms, enlarges upon St. Paul’s words, “this corruptible must put on incorruption,” and in another place he dwells upon the change which The Resurrection. 1. Euseb., A. &. vil. 24—25. Feltoe, Dionysius of Alexandria, pp. xxv, 106. 2. Neander (Planting of Christianity and Antignostikus) quotes Tertullian, De Anima. See also his Church History, vol. U., p. 403. 3, Allen, of. czt., p.67.. Dr, Allen quotes Stvomatezs, IV., ec, 22, 26, 4. Origen, Contra Celsum, iv. 57, Vv. 19. CH. vill.) POINTS OF DOCTRINE UNSETTLED. 179 the body undergoes at the time of resurrection. Tertullian however draws a distinction between the heathen doctrine of the immortality of the soul and the Christian teaching concerning the resurrection of the body. The above short sketch of the doctrines held in the early days of the Church shews at least how many points remained as yet unsettled. The work of the fourth and fifth centuries was to give these a dogmatic shape. But the precise language and clear definitions of the succeeding age was purchased with intestine discord, and the loss of liberty of thought. The century in which men sat at the feet of the great Origen was followed by more timorous days in which his bold imaginings were branded as heresies. % Tertullian, ddv. Marcionem, v., c. 9 ff. CH APT ERaiitn CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES. As we approach the time when the Roman empire united itself to the Church, we may fairly enquire into the cause of the combination of two organizations hitherto, to all appearances, opposed to one another. The triumph of Christianity by its complete absorption of all mental and religious activities in the Roman world is one of the most remarkable facts in the history of mankind. Our astonishment is increased when we consider how speedily a highly civilised and educated age changed from Hellenism to Christianity. The con- version of the nations which overran the Roman empire in the fourth and fifth centuries, though no doubt more rapid, was often due either to actual force or to an appeal to the superstitious terrors of barbarians. But in the first three centuries it is undeniable that many of the most enlightened and cultivated men were led after serious consideration to embrace the new faith. Con- sidering that mankind is always most conservative in the matter of religious prejudices, Christianity appears to have advanced with giant strides between the accession of Marcus Aurelius and the death of Julian. In a.p. 161, when Hellenic philosophy mounted to the throne of the world in the person of the former emperor, Christianity had made comparatively little progress. Two centuries later, when Julian, who in character was not altogether unlike Marcus Aurelius, tried to restore the ancient religion, the Empire was so completely Christianized, that the votaries of Hellenism, nay, the very philosophers CH. Ix.] RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES. 181 and the priests, shewed no great zeal to recover their lost influence. At the end of two years Julian was compelled to acknowledge that Christ had conquered. This is the more remarkable, when we contrast the slow progress of Christian ideas in the ancient civilizations of India and China. We are consequently led to con- sider whether Hellenism and Christianity had not much in common; whether, in short, Greek philosophy was not, like Judaism, a road which led men to the Gospel. The object of this chapter is to give an outline of the attitude assumed by the supporters of Hellenic philo- sophy towards the teaching of the Christian Church. How the Roman Government tried to extirpate Chris- tianity by force, has been already shewn; we shall now describe the attempts to crush the Faith by argument. In the former struggle the martyr confronted the magis- trate; in the latter, Greek philosophers disputed with the doctors of the Church. The Christianity of the second and third centuries expressed in many points the popular feeling of the age. In a correct picture of the Church and Roman society, neither the virtues of the one nor the vices of the other appear in glaring contrast. The Christians were not without their faults, nor the Roman world without its merits. From time to time the believers are found to exhibit signs of human frailty, nor had virtue utterly deserted the heathen population of the Empire. That many good impulses existed among the latter the very success of Christianity sufficiently attests. The progress of the Faith was largely due to the fact that it supplied a want widely felt during the last ages of Hellenic Heathenism. To discover the nature of that want it is necessary to survey the religious and moral aspirations of mankind during the first three centuries of our era. Christianity did not gain its triumphs in an irreligious age. On the contrary, the religious instincts of humanity were especially active in the second and third centuries of our era. A craving for a personal relation with God was characteristic of the period. Although the ancient gods of Greece and Rome might be neglected, or regarded as merely ancient embodiments. of physical 182 DESIRE FOR MONOTHEISM. (CH. 1X. phenomena, the tone of society was neither sceptical nor irreverent. On the contrary, a strong desire for personal religion made many of Greek or Roman birth turn to the religions of the East in order to obtain that which they sought in vain in their ancestral forms of belief. The drift of Philosophy had been to exhibit the need of Monotheism. The conquests of Alexander the Great and the extension of Roman dominion had substituted for nationalism the conception of a consolidated empire embracing all the civilised world. The troubles of the second and third centuries led mankind to feel the need of one personal God. Consequently the religious cults popular in the Roman empire displayed a general desire for a faith at once monotheistic, catholic, and personal.* We may first notice in this connexion the worship of Serapis, which was ex- tremely popular in the second and third centuries of our era. This mysterious god was intro-. duced from Pontus into Alexandria by Ptolemy I. shortly after the foundation of the city. Tacitus gives the legend of the discovery of the god at some length, but adds that some thought that Ptolemy III. brought his image of Serapis from Selucia.? A magnificent temple was raised to his honour in a district of Alexandria called Rhacotis. The building resembled an Indian pagoda rather than a Greek or Egyptian shrine, and stood on a vast mound constructed for the purpose. Within was the colossal figure of the god, formed of plates of all the metals, artfully joined together to typify the harmonious union of different elements in the fabric of the universe. The consort of Serapis was Isis—not the Egyptian deity, but a goddess resembling the Ephesian Diana® and worshipped as the type of Nature in subjection to the Sun, with whom Serapis has been frequently identified. When, however, the god was first introduced into Egypt he was certainly regarded by the Worship of Serapis and isis. 1. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 289 ff. 2. Tacitus, 7st. 1v. 83,84. Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p.72. Dill, of. czt., pp. 560 ff. ) 3. Macrobius (1. 20) says ‘‘ the body is covered with continuous rows of udders, to declare that the universe is maintained by the perpetual nourishing of the earth or nature.” CH. 1X.] WORSHIP OF SERAPIS. 183 Alexandrians as Aidoneus or Dis, the god of the lower world, and his attributes suggest him to have been none other than the Indian god Yama, Lord of Hell. His origin was, however, in part forgotten by his worshippers in later times, and he was adored as the one and only god.1_ At Alexandria Serapis was worshipped with the most frantic devotion, and speculations as to his nature occupied the chief attention of the philosophers. Nor was the cultus confined to Egypt, it extended to the West, and was long practised in Gaul.? The most remarkable identification of Serapis is found in a letter of the emperor Hadrian preserved by Vopiscus in his Life of Saturninus. Hadrian’s words are: “Those who worship Serapis are likewise Christians; even those who style themselves the bishops of Christ are devoted to Serapis. The very Patriarch (the Jewish. nast of Tiberias) is forced by some to adore Serapis, by others to worship Christ. There is but one God for them all. Him do the Christians, Him do the Jews, Him do the Gentiles all alike worship.”® It has even been suggested that the face of the image of this divinity, so full of grave and pensive majesty, gave Christian artists the model for the conventional representation of our Lord, and it is not altogether impossible that some of the semi-pagan Gnostic philosophers saw in Serapis a prototype of Christ, the Lord and Maker of all, and I. This is borne out by the talismanic gems bearing figures of Serapis with such inscriptions as els {av Oeds. 2. Tacitus, Hzs¢. tv. 84: ‘*Deum ipsum multi Aesculapium, quod medeatur aegris corporibus; quidam Osirin, antiquissimum illis gentibus numen; plerique Iovem, ut rerum omnium potentem; plurimi Ditem patrem insignibus, quae in ipso manifesta, aut per ambages coniectant.” Dill, of. cét., 563 ff.: “‘ Although it was generations before the worship won its way, in the face of fierce persecution, to an assured place in Rome, its first appearance coincides with the decay of the old religion, the religious excitement in the beginning of the second century B.c., and the immense popular craving for a more emotional form of! worship.” p. 568: ‘‘ Already in Nero’s reign Lucan could speak of Isis and Osiris as not only welcomed in the shrines of Rome, but as deities of all the world.” 3. Dean Milman (Hist. of Christianity, vol. 11.) thinks however that Hadrian is speaking satirically of the universal worship of wealth. Serapis as a god of the lower world represented Plutus, Vopiscus, Saturninus, c. ll. 184 MITHRAS. (cH. Ix, Judge of quick and dead. Be this as it may, the devo- tion for Serapis, both in Alexandria, the intellectual capital of the Empire, and throughout the Roman world, is a sign of a wide-spread longing for a universal worship of one God.! According to Plutarch the worship of the Persian god Mithras was introduced into the West by the captives brought by Pompey to Italy after his victories over the Cilician pirates, B.c. 67. The new cult rapidly became popular, and has left its traces in all parts of Europe. It was in reality an adaptation of the teaching of the Zend-avesta to Western ideas. Mithras, in the Zoroastrian religion, is the first- born of Ormuzd, the chief of the seven Amshaspands, whose abode is in the Sun. The Greeks however identified the Persian Spirit with their more material deities Phoebus and Hyperion. There were many reasons for this form of Sun-worship becoming a universal religion in the Roman world. The Sun was already adored by all nations, from Britain to the far East. We find philosophers like Macrobius regarding all gods worshipped by civilised men as various forms under which they honoured the Sun. Even Christians, like Origen, dared not deny that the Sun was a rational being endowed with free will.? It is possible therefore that the attempt to install the god of Emesa in Rome and to unite him in marriage with the Palladium was something more than a mad freak of the emperor Heliogabalus. This emperor (as Priest of the Sun) may have seriously aimed at establishing a worship of his deity which should include all other forms of Mithraism. 1. I have taken my account of Serapis from King’s Gnostics and thetr Remains, pp. 158 foll. For the worship of Isis see Apuleius, A/e¢am. XI.; the Hibbert Lectures (1879) by Le Page Renouf; and Dill, o/. céz., p- 572. It seems to have evoked the sympathy of sufferers in a manner not unlike the Christian religion. Many a stricken spirit found comfort in the: adoration of Isis. ‘*She does not forget” says Plutarch ‘‘the sorrow which she endured, nor her painful wanderings, but ordains most holy rites in memory of her sufferings, for instruction in piety, and for the comfort of men and women oppressed by similar misfortunes.” Plutarch, de /szde et Ostrz, 27. 2. Origen De Principits, bk. 1., c. 7. He quotes Job xxv. 5 to shew that the stars are intelligent beings and subject to error. oe Pee eer Ss — Tn - CH. IX. ] MITHRAIC SACRAMENTS. 185 _- religion.1 The Mithraic religion had rites so closely resembling the two great Christian ordinances, that both Justin Martyr and Tertullian? declare them to bea diabolical imitation of the Sacraments. The votaries of Mithras, in common with the Christians, recognised the need of atonement, and held the doctrine of a future life. Augustine, writing when Mithraism was in its decline, informs us that a priest ‘“‘of the fellow in the cap” (illius Pileati, viz. Mithras) used to say ‘‘our capped one is himself a Christian”’.* But the resemblance between the two faiths is, in truth, one of very superficial character. The celebration of the Mithraic eucharist was attended at times with the performance of darker rites, nor was human sacrifice unknown in connexion with its orgies. This may perhaps account for the popular belief that the Christians met in secret fora similar purpose. As wide a gulf severs the Mithraic baptism of the Taurobolium from that of the Christian laver of regeneration. The recipient of the horrid Mithraic rite stood in a pit covered with planks pierced full of holes. A bull was then slain and the blood was allowed to fall into the pit and drench the man below. As the bull was the symbol of life, the lustration of the Taurobolium was considered to have unlimited efficacy. The desire for purification and regeneration so vividly expressed by this ceremony shews that the worshippers of Mithras were partly conscious of a truth which found its full expression in Christianity.® 1. ‘* Bringing together in his temple the Fire of Vesta, the Palladium, the Ancilia, and all the other most venerated relics; and moreover the religion of the Jews and Samaritans, and the devotion of the Christians,” says Lampridius. King, Gmostics and their Remains, p. 119. 2. justin Martyr, dol. 1. 62,66. Tertullian, de Baptismo, c. 5. 3. Origen, Contra Celsum, vi. 22. . 4. King, Gnostics and their Remains, p. 119. ‘* Usque adeo ut ego noverim aliquo tempore illius Pileati sacerdotem solere dicere ‘Et ipse Pileatus Christianus est’.” Aug., Hom. tx Joh., vu. 6. Bigg, Zhe Church’s Task under the Roman Empire, Lect. I. King, Gnostics and their Remains, part 11., ‘The Worship of Mithras and Serapis.’ Cumont, Monuments Kelatifs aux Mystéres de Mithra, ‘It is perhaps the highest and most striking example of the last efforts of paganism to reconcile itself to the great moral and spiritual movement...towards purer conceptions of God, of man’s relations to Him, and of the life to come. It is also the greatest effort of syncretism to absorb ... the gods of the classic pantheon in a cult which was almost 186 ROMAN AND HELLENIC RELIGION. [cu. 1x. it The deities of Rome presented little Religion of Rome attraction to their own worshippers and none to the outside world. The hard practical nature of the Roman people was little sus- ceptible to religious impressions. The national gods reflected the national character. They were mere frigid impersonations of civic virtues and the useful arts of life. Their worship tended to develop the sense of citizenship without in any way satisfying man’s spiritual instincts. It has been truly observed that the religion of Rome was purely selfish, being simply a means of obtaining prosperity, averting calamity, and reading the future. The virtues inculcated by the old Roman religion disappeared with the growth of luxury in the latter days of the Republic, and with them the power of the gods of Rome. ‘The worship with its ceremonial and priesthood remained, but its influence had long disappeared.} The religion of the Hellenic nation had even less power to satisfy the moral or spiritual cravings of the heart. Its mythology, the creation of an unbridled and irreverent fancy, attributed the basest motives and the worst actions to the gods, and is an evidence of the lack of seriousness inherent in the Greek mind. From a very early date the popular religion excited either the con- tempt or hostility of the philosophers. Pythagoras (born about 582 B.c.) is said to have declared that he had seen both Homer and Hesiod tortured in Hell on account of the fables they had invented about the gods. His younger contemporary Xenophanes remarked that each nation attributed to the gods its distinctive national type.2. The very existence of the popular gods was questioned by many philosophers, the general opinion among them being that there was really but one supreme God, but they were not agreed as to whether he had an existence apart from the universe or was simply the monotheistic.” Dill, of. cét., p. 585. Renan suggested that if Christianity had succumbed, Mithraism might have become the religion of the Western world. 1. Lecky, Aestory of European Morals, vol.t.,p. 176; ‘*The Roman religion, even in its best days, though an admirable system of moral discipline, was never an independent source of moral enthusiasm.”” 2. Lecky, of. czt., p. 109. Ueberweg, “story of Philosophy, vol. 1., p. 52. (Eng. Transl.) Clement of Alexandria, Stvom., VII., p. 711 b. CH. Ix.] MYSTERIES. 187 anima mundi, the all-pervading spirit of nature. The traditional religion of Greece is an example of a popular faith continuing for centuries after being separated from the moral and intellectual aspirations of the educated part of those who professed to hold it. On one side only did the religion of Hellas approximate to Christianity. In the Mysteries, especially those of Eleusis, we recognise an attempt in the direction of personal religion. ‘They were the worship not of the gods of the sky, but of those of the lower world, a Triad consisting of a god and two goddesses, Pluto, Demeter, and Koré or Persephone. The Mysteries were guarded with jealous care by secret societies, and were known only to the initiated. The ceremonies by which they were disclosed appear to have been of a most imposing and dramatic character. The initiation to the Mysteries at Eleusis began witha solemn proclamation that no one might enter whose hands were not clean and whose tongue was not prudent. The candidates were next asked to confess their sins, con- fession being followed by a species of baptism. A fast of nine days, during which certain kinds of food were forbidden, was prescribed, and at the end of this period a solemn sacrifice, known as the cwrnpia, was offered by each of the candidates. After a further interval of two days a procession of the initiates set out from Athens for Eleusis, singing paeans in honour of the god. The night ' of their arrival was spent in learning the nature of the Mysteries. The candidates stood outside the temple in the darkness ; suddenly the doors were opened and they were in a blaze of light. The story of Demeter and Koré was represented: the loss of the daughter, the grief of the mother, the restoration of life from death. The whole scene was a parable; mors janua vitae the clue to it. In the Roman empire, mysteries of the character described obtained wide popularity. Most of them gave utterance to the same ideas as those expressed in the sacred rites of Eleusis—the desire for purification from sin, the hope of immortality, the joy of a brotherly union cemented by religion. The popularity of mysticism was, in fact, a part of a great religious revival which distinguished the age, a noteworthy feature of which The Mysteries. 188 INFLUENCE OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. [cu. IX, was the desire to worship the One true God. Even in early times the unity of God appears to have been ac- knowledged in the Eleusinian Mysteries. An ancient hymn sung in them by the priest said: ‘Go on in the right way and contemplate the sole Governor of the world. He is One and of himself alone, and to that One all things owe their being. He worketh through all, was never seen by mortal eyes, but doth himself see everyone.’ pated katie The Philosopher exercised in the Roman Empire. Empire a far greater influence than the Priest, and was not unfrequently sum- moned to act the part of a spiritual director? His authority was respected in cases of conscience, and his presence sought in times of sickness or bereavement. In some families the philosopher occupied a position somewhat analogous to that of a domestic chaplain. The satirist Lucian describes the troubles of philosophers who lived under the patronage of the fashionable ladies of his time. His essay ‘On Persons who give their Society for Pay’ recalls the description of the chaplains in the novels of the eighteenth century. One philosopher has to travel in the cart with the maid-servants, another is asked to take care of the lap-dog, a third reads a sermon on temperance while his patroness is having her hair dressed, and is interrupted while she writes a note to her lover.’ —The same author, in his description of the death of Peregrinus Proteus, depicts the philo- ~ sophers as street preachers addressing exciting harangues to the multitudes on the subject of the proposed self- immolation of Peregrinus. The philosophers in their long cloaks were everywhere conspicuous. Like the mendicants in the middle ages, they sought to inspire reverence by their ragged attire, their filth, and (to borrow a phrase from Gibbon) ‘their populous beards’. Some philosophers held well-endowed ‘chairs’ of philo- sophy in the great cities, others wandered about from 1. See Dr. Hatch’s Azbbert Lectures, Lecture X., ‘The Influence of the Mysteries upon Christian Usages.’? Also Zhe Unknown God, by C. Loring Brace, ch. iv.; and Bury, “story of Greece, pp. 312 ff. 2. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 289 ff. 3. Hatch, of. cat, ch. ii., ‘Greek Education.’ 5 ao r at Sie <=") a ee os poe he. cack alin a ™ CH. 1x.] UNPOPULARITY OF EPICUREANS. 189 place to place delivering lectures. The dominant philosophy of the age aimed at moral excellence, and many submitted to ascetic discipline by the advice of a philosopher. Marcus Aurelius led the life of a religious recluse under the guidance of Junius Rusticus and Claudius Severus. At the age of twelve the future emperor assumed the dress of a philosopher, and learned to practise such severe austerities as permanently to injure his health.* During the early days of Christianity the aim of Greek philosophy was the moral elevation of mankind, and despite the eccentricities and follies of a few, the influence of the philosophers was a power for good. The works of the best exponents of Stoicism, of Seneca, of Epictetus, and of Marcus Aurelius, remain to this day among the most popular moral treatises of antiquity. Christians like Justin Martyr after their conversion continued to wear the philosopher’s robe, which Tertullian considered to be the dress most be- coming to a Christian teacher.’ The most popular and wide-spread philosophies during the first three centuries of our era appear to have been those of the Epicurean, Stoic, and Neo-Platonic schools. ‘The first-named was, however, steadily decreasing in influence. The times were too hard, the tragic side of life too prominent, to allow the genial but selfish doctrines of Epicurus to flourish. When they made their appearance in Rome, they were hailed by Lucretius as a means of deliverance from superstition,* but the calamities which the world had undergone in the first and second centuries had made mankind turn with longing to the supernatural, and the religious feeling of the age was entirely opposed to the atheism of the Epicurean philosophy. Origen Epicureans. 1. Renan, Marcus Aurelius, ch. i. 2. Tertullian, de Anz. 20, ‘*‘ Seneca saepe noster.” 3. Tertullian, de Palio. 4. ‘* Humana ante oculos foede quum vita jaceret In terris oppressa gravi sub religione, Quae caput a coeli regionibus ostendebat, Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans : Primum Graius homo mortalis tollere contra Est oculos ausus, primusque obsistere contra.” Lucretius, 1. 62—67. 190 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS, [CH. IX. taunts Celsus with not daring to avow himself to be an Epicurean.1 Lucian, in his romance of the pseudo- prophet Alexander of Abonitichos, makes the hero institute a celebration of Mysteries, on the first day of which a proclamation was made, “If any Atheist or Christian or Epicurean has come to spy upon the festival, let him flee!”? The unpopularity of the Epicureans is in itself a sign of the religious temper of the age. The satirist Lucian (born about 120 A.D.), who made it the object of his life to expose impostures, is the most brilliant product of the Epicurean philosophy. He describes himself as a hater of jugglery, les, and ostentation. He attacks superstition with umnsparing severity, shewing himself relentless towards those who imposed on the credulity of man- kind. His detestation of hypocrisy is apparent even when his laugh is loudest. Lucian introduces the Christians in his humorous description of Peregrinus Proteus, a Cynic philosopher who burned himself at the Olympic Games. The satirist treats the admiration excited by this ostentatious self-immolation with the ridicule it deserves, and gives a short biography of Peregrinus. Among the victims of the impostor were the Christians, whom Lucian describes as very simple persons liable to be deceived by worthless pretenders to sanctity. Pere- grinus completely succeeded in making the Christians his dupes, and when he was imprisoned for the Faith,’ their admiration for him was unbounded. They regarded him, in Lucian’s words, ‘“‘as their legislator and high priest, nay they almost worshipped him as a god.” Lucian. 1. Origen, Contra Celsum, 1, 68. 2. Hatch, Hzbbert Lectures, x. Lucian, Alex., c. 38. 3. Lucian in his amusing sketch de Morte Peregrint shews a very slight acquaintance with Christianity. Peregrinus’ connexion with the Church was probably due to Lucian’s imagination. He is called by a strange mixture of Jewish and heathen terms mpogjrns cal Ocacdpxns Kal guvaywyevs, and is said to have composed some of the sacred books of the Christians. A deputation from the churches of Asia waited upon Pere- grinus during his imprisonment. It seems highly probable that Lucian based the story of his hero’s adventures as a Christian upon an account of the martyrdom of Ignatius. Lightfoot, 4sostolic Fathers, Part II., vol. 1., PP- 344 sq. CH, IX.] STOICISM. IQI During the imprisonment of Peregrinus the widows and orphans of the Church visited him assiduously, and bribes were offered to his gaolers for permission to share in his imprisonment. He was attended by the clergy, who delivered religious addresses in his presence. At last, however, the Christians seem to have discovered that Peregrinus was an impostor. Lucian says that they expelled him from their society for eating something for- bidden among them. Although Lucian’s account of the Christian religion shews that he had only a superficial acquaintance with its doctrines, his description of their behaviour to Peregrinus is probably taken from observa- tion. It is noteworthy that he shews no animosity in his description: in his eyes the Christians are ignorant and credulous persons, liable to be deluded by any clever charlatan.’ The teaching of Zeno of Citium (circa B.C. 350—258) was popular in Rome during the latter days of the Republic,? and continued to be the chief moral force in the Empire till the death of Marcus Aurelius. The proud self-sufficiency, the heroic devotion to duty inculcated by the Stoics, together with the importance attached by them to the performance of the practical obligations of life, made their doctrine very attractive to the Roman mind, and Stoicism contributed largely to the maintenance of a lofty ideal of virtue during the wildest excesses of the early days of the Empire.® The influence for good exercised by the most eminent professors of Stoicism during the first centuries of our era, and the excellence of many of their maxims, has prompted several Christian writers to discover a connexion between the first preachers of the Gospel and the Stoics. Stoicism. 1. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 337 ff. 2. In B.C. 155, the Athenians sent an embassy to Rome consisting of Diogenes a Stoic philosopher, Carneades the Academic, and the Peripatetic Critolaus. Cato the Elder was so apprehensive of the influence of Greek philosophy that he insisted on the Athenian ambassadors being dismissed as soon as possible. Panaetius of Rhodes (about 180—111 B.C.) was the first Stoic philosopher to make disciples among the Roman aristocracy. Ueberweg, History of Philosophy. 3. Lecky, Aistory of European Morals, vol. 1., ch. ii., ‘The Pagan Empire.’ Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 289 ff. {92 STOICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. (CH. IX. Many Stoic precepts bear a strong if Supposed superficial resemblance to the utterances of peebtascigrone j Christians. St. Paul and Seneca present and Christianity. such striking analogies, thatithas been con- jectured that they had become acquainted during the Apostle’s imprisonment in Rome. ‘The language of Seneca might be that of a Christian divine when he says: “No man is good without God.” ‘God made the world because He is good; as the good never grudges anything good, He therefore made everything the best possible.” ‘God has a fatherly mind towards good men and loves them stoutly ; and, saith He, Let them be harassed with toils, with pains, with losses, that they may gait true strength.” ‘A holy spirit resides in us, the guardian and observer of our good and evil deeds.’’? Still more devotional are the sayings of Epictetus: “ The first thing to learn is that there is a God, that His know- ledge pervades the whole universe, and that it extends not only to our acts, but thoughts and feelings.” ‘‘To have God for our maker and father and guardian, should not that emancipate us from all sadness and from all fear?” “When you have shut your door and darkened your room say not to yourself that you are alone. God is in your room, and your attendant genius likewise. Think not that they need the light to see what you do.” “What can I, an old man and a cripple, do but praise God?”? The same religious character is exhibited, if possible in a still greater degree, in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. | Similarity of phraseology, however, Ae, SGP poes does not necessarily involve identity of irreconeileable, thought. The Stoic idea of God is radically opposed to the Christian. The latter con- ceives of God as a Being with personal attributes dis- 1: The pretended correspondence between the Apostle and the Philosopher was current in the days of St. Jerome. 2. Lightfoot, Philippians, Dissertation ‘St. Paul and Seneca’, . 279. . 3. Quoted by Lecky, Aestory of Huropean Morals, vol. 1., p. 260, from Arrian, Epictetus. Notice, however, the harsh contempt with which Epictetus speaks of women and children: Bigg, Church’s Task under the Roman Empire, p. xii. OE CH. 1X.] THE STOIC IDEA OF GOD. 193 tinct from the universe of which He is the Creator and Ruler. When the Stoic spoke of God, he meant the soul of the universe, the animating spirit of the world. Thus the philosophers of the Porch regarded God in a totally different light from that in which Christians contemplate Him. The Hebrew idea, adopted by Christians, that God is infinitely superior to man, is quite alien to the Stoic conception of His nature. To Jew and Christian alike the idea of comparing man with God seems blasphemous. The Stoic saw nothing profane in assert- ing that the wise man is the equal of Zeus. To him Lucan’s famous line “ Victvix causa deis placuit, sed victa Catoni”’* contains nothing irreverent, The just man defying adverse fate appeared a nobler object than the gods themselves. Equally unintelligible to the Stoics was the warm sympathy displayed by Christians to one another. Absence of feeling was the ideal of the one; to rejoice with them that rejoice and to weep with them that weep, the duty of the other. The most famous examples of Stoicism prided themselves on their com- plete freedom from all natural emotions. ‘The philo- sopher who, on being told that his son was dead, replied “T never thought that I had begotten an immortal,” was commended as an example of manly fortitude. The sentiment of pity was considered to be a sign of weakness. The wise man, it was said, ought to imitate the gods in relieving distress without experiencing any sentiments of compassion. Compassion in the eyes of the Stoic was an abuse of clemency, as superstition is of religion. This arrogance, however, towards God and harshness towards man, which in the Stoic system of ethics occupied a place among the noblest virtues, were not more alien to the precepts of Christianity than its view of death. Nothing proves more clearly how wide a gulf separates the ideas of antiquity from those prevalent among the Christianized nations of Europe, than the view taken of suicide. In modern jurisprudence suicide is considered a crime, public opinion brands it as an act of cowardice, and the merciful verdict of a jury often attributes self-destruction to insanity. In the opinion of 1. Pharsalia, i. 128. 194 STOIC SERVICES TO HUMANITY. (cu. 1x. antiquity, suicide was frequently an act of sublime virtue. The death of Cato was a common subject for panegyric. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, died by his own hand. Seneca expatiates on the power of termin- ating life at will as a most inestimable privilege. ‘This frame of mind, almost incomprehensible to us, was com- mon in antiquity. Very few remonstrances were made by ancient moralists against the practice of self-murder. The Roman law recognised the right of a man to end his life when he pleased, and imposed no posthumous disgrace on suicides. This circumstance is attributable to the view the ancients took of death. They had no idea that it could be regarded as the wages of sin. The Platonists looked upon it as the liberation of the soul from the bondage of the body; many said that it was an eternal sleep. The philosophers agreed in condemning the popular superstition that men were tormented in Tartarus.! It is not surprising, therefore, that the only allusions Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius? make to Chris- tianity should express their contempt for the desire for martyrdom shewn by the believers. The rapturous hopes of a future life, as well as the joy felt by the martyrs at dying for Christ, seemed to them the height of folly and ostentation. The wise man, if he desired to retire from life, had the remedy in his own hands, and could do so quietly and without display. It is undeniable that the Stoic philo- sophy did a great work in stimulating a -love of virtue in one of the darkest periods of history. It is no small glory to a philosophical School that, Stoic virtue. during the political immorality which characterised the - last days of the Republic and the hideous outbreak of unbridled sensuality which marked the age of the Twelve Caesars, it should have taught ‘men to prize 1. Lecky, Héstory of European Morals, vol. 1., p. 217: ‘‘ To destroy them (these superstitions) was represented as the highest function of philosophy. Plutarch denounced them as the worst calumny against the Deity, as more pernicious than atheism...... P 2. Epictetus, speaking of the fearless attitude which a wise man ought to assume towards the threats of a tyrant, says elra trd wavlas pév Sivaral ris oUrw Siaredjvat mpds Tav’ra, kal vrd €Oous ws ol TadtAator. Arrian, Dzss., Iv. 7,6. Marcus Aurelius condemns the WAH wapdragis with which the Christians meet death. CH. 1X] NEO-PLATONISM. 195 integrity, self-discipline, and virtue as the highest good. At the time when the profession of virtue was regarded as a crime, Stoicism furnished its martyrs. Its principles triumphed with the accession of Nerva, and close upon a century of good government marked its victory. To the Stoics the world owes the enunciation of principles, which Christianity has at last made realities. The _ noble declaration that ‘all men are born free’ was first made by a Stoic; that slaves were capable of virtue was strongly affirmed by Seneca, and proved by Epictetus. Marcus Aurelius under the teaching of Stoicism affords one of the very few examples of despotic power exercised entirely. for the benefit of mankind. In this great emperor, moreover, many of the more repulsive aspects of Stoicism were conspicuously absent. He was sincerely religious, his disposition seems to have been singularly affectionate, his self-examination in his Meditations shews a touching humility. This softening of the asperities of Stoicism, though partly due to the personal character of the Emperor, is to some extent attributable to the tendencies of his age. In philosophy, as in religion, eclecticism had become popular, and Marcus Aurelius was, in this respect, no exception to the rule. His Stoicism was very dissimilar to the harsh philosophy which formed the earlier ideals of Cato or of Brutus.} The heartlessness of Epicureanism and the hard self-righteousness of Stoicism were being supplanted throughout the second century by more humane and religious philosophies. It must be added that the period succeeding the death of Aurelius was hardly propitious to the practical and eminently political virtues inculcated by Stoicism. From the time of Commodus to that of Diocletian political life was crushed by the licence of military despotism. The New Platonism, which maintained supremacy in the philo- sophical Schools from the death of Marcus Aurelius to the suppression of philosophical teaching by the bigotry of Justinian (A.D. 527), was a fusion of various philo- sophies and religions. It laboured to keep the influence of philosophy alive by allying it with religion, and to ! Neo-Platonism, 1. Bigg, Church's Task under the Roman Empire, p. xii. N 2 196 NEO-PLATONIC PERSECUTORS. (CH. Ix. revive religion under the sanction of philosophy. In consequence of this the Neo-Platonists came into open collision with the Christians. The attitude of the philo- sophers of the new School towards the Church was neither that of the Epicureans, who regarded Christianity as a delusion to be ridiculed, nor that of the Stoics, to whom it was a political duty to crush a religion alike unreasonable and illegal. The Neo-Platonists saw in Christianity a rival religion, and employed the arts of the priest as well as those of the statesman to subdue it. This is the true explanation of the persecution under Diocletian, accounting for the phenomena by which it was characterised. The refusal of the oracles to reply to the Emperor because the Christians were tolerated, the burning of the Christian Scriptures, the outrages on the chastity of the Christian virgins, and the other distinguishing features of this persecution, may be traced to the influence of Neo-Platonic philosophers like Hierocles and Theotecnus. The earlier persecutions had been political ; the last great persecution was essentially religious. The same fanatical spirit, though restrained by the caution and, we may add, the natural humanity of the Emperor, animated Julian’s attempt to suppress Christianity more than half a century later. In Neo-Platonism the system of the later Pythagoreans was combined with the teaching of the Platonists. The Pythagorean philosophy, revived at Alexandria about B.c. 60 by P. Nigidius Figulus, was further developed by the Plato-Pythagoreans, among the most celebrated of whom were Plutarch, Galen the physician (a.p. 131— 200), Celsus the opponent of Christianity, and Numenius of Apamea.? Between this School and the Jewish and Christian philosophers, especially those of Alexandria, there were many remarkable affinities. Philo was almost more a Platonist than a Jew; Justin Martyr in his search for truth, before he became a Christian, found partial satis- _ faction in the Platonic doctrines ; nor does his teaching _ Origin of Neo- Platonism. & Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 398. CH. 1X.] APOLLONIUS OF TYANA. 197 on the subject of the Logos differ materially from that of the Plato-Pythagoreans of the second century. Evidence that Christianity was not entirely without influence upon some of the exponents of this philosophy is found in the ‘Life of Apollonius of Tyana’ composed by Philostratus at the request of Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus. It is obviously based on the Gospel narrative, and it seems to have been written with a desire to conciliate the Christians, and to shew under what conditions Hellenism was prepared to acknowledge our Lord. Apollonius of Tyana was a goat Neo-Pythagorean philosopher in the age pollonius 3 ; i of Tyana, of Nero. His biography, written by by Philostratus. Philostratus, is a pure romance, represent- ing the sage as a combination of the Christian Messiah and a Greek philosopher. His birth was announced by Proteus, the spirit of nature. To his mother’s request to know whom she was to bear, the god replied, ‘“‘Myself.” At the age of sixteen the divine child’s mission began; he gave away his property, and took a vow of perpetual chastity. He constantly practised all the severe asceticism of a Pythagorean recluse—dwelling in temples, especially those of Aescu- lapius. His desire for wisdom led him to the land of the Brahmins, from which he returned as the saviour of the Hellenic world, wandering from city to city attended by his disciples. From the heathen priests he met with continual opposition, but the common people heard him gladly. His mysterious powers were felt by the political world in the downfall both of Nero and of Domitian, and in the elevation of Vespasian and of Nerva. Hearing of the persecution of the philosophers, Apollonius visited Rome. When he was insulted and imprisoned and told by his judge to save himself by a miracle, he vanished from the tribunal and appeared to two disciples at Puteoli as they sat in the grotto of the nymphs talking of their lost master. Apollonius 1. Numenius of Apamea, for example, speaks of the first God who is pure thought (vofs) and the principle of being (ovclas dpx7). The second God is the Creator (6 Snusovpyds Geds). The third God is the World. He terms these three Gods respectively ‘Father, Son, and Grandson,’ Euseb., Praep. Evang., Xi. 22. 198 CELSUS. : [CH. IX. continued his work of reformation, preaching earnestly against the shedding of blood in sacrifices, the worship of images, and the cruelty of the amphitheatre. At last he was imprisoned in Crete, but the prison doors were opened, his chains were loosed, and he ascended to heaven in the company of hosts of celestial beings. The object of Philostratus appears to have been to present in his hero a life of Christ alike acceptable to Hellenic and Christian ideas." If the Life of Apollonius may be con- im. [elsus’ sidered as an eirenicon oifered by the recon sednrte Plato-Pythagoreans to the Christians, the the Christians. work of Celsus is a statement of their objections to the doctrine of the Church. Celsus wrote his treatise probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but it does not seem to have attracted much attention till half a century later, when a copy fell into the hands of Ambrosius of Alexandria, who asked Origen to answer its arguments. In his great work against Celsus the Christian Apologist has quoted so much of his opponent’s book that we are able to obtain a good idea of its contents. The Aoyos adnO7s, as Celsus’ work was entitled, is of inestimable historical value, because it enables us to see in what light Christianity was regarded by the most cultivated heathens of the third century. Celsus evidently devoted much time and attention to the study of Christianity. He was familiar with the Scriptures, knew something of the internal divisions among believers, and he had made himself acquainted with the opinions of several Gnostic sects. Although his incapacity to appreciate the beauties of the religion he desires to overthrow often impels Celsus to advance palpably absurd arguments, he is sometimes a very dangerous and skilful antagonist. According to Celsus, the world is the work of the One God, who committed it to the care of the inferior gods or Daemons. The Creator has no need, like a bad workman, to correct His work, but can leave it to continue in the same perfect condition as it was when He called it into being. 1. Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, pp. 244—252, Dill, op. ett., p. 399 ff. CH. IX.]} OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 199 The world was not made for the sake of mankind, whom he regards as only a part of the universal whole, not in many respects superior to the beasts. The soul of man is immortal, but his body is of vile and perish- able material. Worship is due to the Daemons, for by honouring them we honour the Creator of all. Everything is in subjection to God ; and it is derogatory to His dignity to suppose that there can be evil beings opposed to Him. Celsus regards Christianity as not only irrational but as taking an unworthy view of God, since its doctrine of Redemption presupposes an im- perfection in God’s creation, and the hope of resurrection implies an unworthy desire for the retention of the mortal body. The supposition that God specially desires the salvation of the human race is an undue exaltation of one small part of creation. Celsus con- siders that the refusal of the Christians to worship the Daemons betrays inconsistency, for it is impossible to avoid receiving benefits from them, since the very food which we eat and the air which we breathe are the gifts of the particular Daemons to whose province they are assigned. Equally incomprehensible to Celsus is the Christian doctrine of the manifestation of God in Jesus Christ. He dwells on the supposed meanness of our Lord’s appearance, and on the failure of His earthly career, and considers it folly to imagine that God would thus reveal Himself. Celsus is not slow to take ad- vantage of what appear to him as weak points in the Christian scheme:—the inconsistency between the moral code of the Old Testament and that of the New; the discrepancies in the Gospels ; the notion that an obscure race like the Jews were God’s chosen people. His tone throughout is bitter and supercilious; he can see no merit in the Christian Faith, and treats it as a pure delusion.’ But the care bestowed upon the refuta- tion of Christianity by Celsus shews that he was far from underrating its power. He feels that it is destined at no long period of time to prevail. Celsus was the first of the governing classes to discern that Christianity 1. Baur, Church History, vol. ., pp. 140—167. An admirable epitome of the arguments of Celsus. 200 THE NEO-PLATONISTS. (CH. IX. was dividing Roman society, and he viewed with alarm the prospect of a large, intelligent, and ill-used class, alienated by persecution from public affairs, when the Empire needed its support. His diatribe against the Christians concludes with an earnest appeal to them to rally round the Emperor against his foes and no longer to refuse to serve the State in public offices.» pied tas The founder of the Neo-Platonic Neo-Platonists, OChool? was an apostate from Christianity named Ammonius Saccas (A.D. 175—250), whose lectures Origen is said to have attended. Plotinus (a.p. 204—269), the disciple of Ammonius, was the first to develope the principles of Neo-Platonism into a system, which was subsequently revised and arranged by his pupil Porphyry (a.p. 232—304).8 Jam- blichus (died a.D. 330) opposed Porphyry’s attempt to discountenance the growing tendency to combine magical practices with philosophy, by laying great stress on the religious aspect of Neo-Platonism, which he regarded simply as a means of strengthening poly- theism.* Hierocles, the governor of Bithynia in the time of the persecution of Diocletian, and the Emperor Julian (A.D. 361—363), were also members of the Neo- Platonic School. | Neo-Platonism differed from the earlier systems of philosophy in its preference of the contemplative to the practical side of life. Stoicism had made active virtue its chief object; and the ancient philosophers of Greece had clearly recognised the inculcation of principles of political virtue as their: most important duty. The Neo-Platonists, on the other hand, sought rather to 1. Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, pp. 254—267. 2. Erdmann, “History of Philosophy, vol. 1., pp. 126—130 (Eng. Transl., Sonnenschein). Ueberweg, Azstory of Philosophy (Theol. and Philosophical Library). Lecky, Azstory of European Morals, vol. i, pp. 348 foll. Baur, Church History, vol. 11.5 pp. 178—189. Gibbon, ch. xiii. (end). 3. Ueberweg, of. czt., p. 251. Porphyry’s writings against the Christians are only known from quotations in the works of Eusebius, Augustine, &c. 4. Jamblichus distinguishes between the @eol voepol, vrepxdcuiot, and éyxdoptot and the Absolute One, the évas duéOexros. Erdmann, Aistory of Philosophy, vol. 1.5 p. 248 (Eng. Trans.). . . CH. Ix. ] REVIVAL OF SUPERSTITION. 201 withdraw their disciples from the world than to encourage participation in the active duties of life.! This tendency is in part attributable to the cessation of political life in the Empire, but chiefly to the transcen- dental character of the Neo-Platonic conception of God. Plotinus and his followers agreed with the Christians in exalting God above the universe, and in placing Him beyond the reach of human understanding. They believed, however, that the soul, if purified from all earthly thoughts, was capable of ecstatic contemplation of the Divinity.2, This condition of mind was considered attainable by self-isolation and ascetic observances, and, notwithstanding the protests of Porphyry, it was frequently sought by the practice of magic or in cere- monies of a mysterious and awe-inspiring character.’ The popular myths, which the earlier philosophers had either held up to ridicule or endeavoured to explain as due to ignorant misconceptions of natural phenomena, were regarded by the Neo-Platonists as foreshadowing the most important truths. The doctrine of Daemons, or intermediaries between God and man, was carefully maintained by this School, which in its opposition to the bolder scepticism of antiquity exalted credulity into a virtue, and degraded manly self-discipline into a means of weakening the physical power of the body in order to quicken the spiritual perceptions. The Neo- Platonists attempted to provide, by a revival of the ancient religion, a counter-attraction to Christianity. The Roman world in its desire for a faith was already almost prepared to embrace the Gospel, when this last effort to restore the influence of Hellenism was made. The Neo-Platonists borrowed without acknowledgement that which seemed most attractive in Christianity, and 1. Plotinus teaches that retirement from the whole external world is necessary for the attainment of this standpoint. Erdmann, fzstory of Philosophy, vol. 1., p. 244 (Eng. Trans.). Lecky, Azstory of European Morals, p. 350. 2. According to Plotinus, we must believe in this illumination in which the contemplating and the contemplated become one, so that ecstasy, devotion, actual union, take the place of contemplation of another. Erdmann, Joc. cit. 3. Porphyry’s Epzstle to Anebon is a protest against this. Rendall, Fulian, ch. iii. Dill, of. czt., pp. 430 ff. 202 PORPHYRY’S ARGUMENTS, [CH. IX. used it to galvanize the dead forms of older creeds into a semblance of life. The philosophers of this School, Attacks on puis especially Porphyry,' shewed much zeal tianity by Weo-Pletonistes/jii0 combating the Christian doctrines. The line of argument adopted was more plausible than that followed by Celsus and the earlier writers against Christianity. The Neo-Platonists did not, like their predecessors, asperse the character of our Lord, but, whilst professing a great admiration for the life of Jesus, they endeavoured to shew that the teaching of the Founder of Christianity was perverted by His disciples, especially when they represent Him as an opponent of the gods of polytheism.? Porphyry, the writer most hostile to the Church and most dreaded by the Christian Fathers, applied himself to a searching examination of the Old and New Testaments. He declared the book of Daniel to be not a prophecy but an historical work composed in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes; he used the dispute between St. Peter and St. Paul, related in Galatians, ch. i1., as an argument against the credibility of the testimony of the Church, whose leaders were proved to have been guilty, the one of inconsistency, and the other of contentiousness; and he censures our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem (St. John vii. 14) after His refusal to go up to the feast of tabernacles (St. John vii. 8).8 Porphyry, Jamblichus, and Hierocles agreed in blaming the exclusive reverence of the Christians for their Founder, and in claiming that in Pythagoras and Apollonius of Tyana the Deity had been manifested to the world at least as wonderfully as the Christians supposed had been the case in the life of Jesus. Jamblichus depicts Pythagoras as not only the highest ideal of wisdom but as an incarnate god. The chief hope of the Neo-Platonic revival lay in this 1. Baur, Church History, vol. 11., p. 179. Theodoret, a Christian bishop of the fifth centnry, calls Porphyry 6 dowovdos nuwy wodduos 6 | wavrwy éxOcoros diareOjvat. 2. Baur, of. ctt., p. 182. Augustine calls them ‘‘vani Christi laudatores, et Christianae religionis obliqui obtrectatores”’. 3. Smith and Wace, Dict. Christian Biog., Art. * Porphyry’. Porphyry wrote fifteen books against the Christians. Ueberweg, Azstory of Philosophy, vol, 1., p. 253. Euseb., 2. &. vi. 19. alt Pee nea ie calc a CH.1x.} NEO-PLATONISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 203 . attempt.1. In a credulous and undiscriminating age, when Porphyry’s criticism of Christian records had little weight, the partisans of Hellenism saw that if Christianity was to be supplanted it could only be by a system which was a counterfeit of its own. Hellenism could only succeed if a divine Pythagoras could supplant Christ, and Oriental magic take the place of the Sacra- ments of the Church. Neo-Platonism was a last despairing attempt to counterfeit Christianity under the name of Hellenism. If in the Neo-Platonic School we pecnenente, BS see philosophy powerfully influenced by Christianity. Christian ideas, the history of the Church in the fourth century shews the reflex _action of Neo-Platonism upon Christianity. The same tendencies, which had caused the ancient philosophies to give way to systems in which emotional ecstasy was preferred to virtue, and the practice of bodily mortifica- tion to duty, were at work among the Christians. A growing belief in the value of the mere externals of religion, an ever-increasing credulity, and undue reverence for relics, holy places, and the like, conjoined with a preference of orthodoxy to purity of life, and of asceticism to domestic virtue, are characteristics of the age which followed the conversion of Constantine. The degeneracy of philosophy was accompanied by a corresponding decay of the nobler elements of primitive Christianity. The high ideals of St. Paul, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian in the Church have their counterparts in those of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. The great Fathers of the fourth century completely overshadowed all the repre- sentatives of the philosophy of their age, but were power- less to check its prevailing influences. Monasticism, the multiplication of religious rites, pilgrimages, and relic worship, were signs of the rapid degeneration of the lofty morality and fearless faith of the first age of Christianity. The difference between Christian thought in the Eastern and Western world is further illustrated by the attitude of the Fathers towards philosophy. The Orientals—Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen—were The Christian Apologists. ¥, “Baur; of, c#Z.5°p.. 153. 204 APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES. “ (CH, IX. irresistibly attracted by the teaching of Plato, which was regarded with distrust by the teachers of the Western Church. On the other hand, the practical morality of the Stoics touched a responsive chord in the hearts of the Occidentals. ‘Tertullian, Lactantius, and Jerome agree in praising Seneca; and the spurious correspondence between that philosopher and St. Paul attained a wide popularity in the Latin Church.’ Herein lies the reason for the distinction between the Greek and Latin Apologists. The former made it their first object to demonstrate that Christianity is the perfect develop- ment of truths imperfectly apprehended by the sages of antiquity ;? the latter, that the Faith is worthy of encour- agement because of its salutary influence on mankind. The newly discovered Apology of Aristides is the earliest example of a Greek Apology for Christianity. Eusebius says that when Hadrian succeeded Trajan, Quadratus presented him with a discourse about the Christians, because at this time some evil-disposed persons were trying to arouse a persecution against them. From this Apology Eusebius proceeds to quote the oft-cited passage about some of those who had been healed and even raised from the dead by our Saviour surviving to his own days. After this the historian speaks of Aristides, “a faithful man attached to our religion, who also addressed an Apology to Hadrian.” “The work” he adds “is extant to this day with very many.”® The Armenian version of the Chronicle of the same writer, under the year A.D. 124 says that Aristides was a philosopher of Athens, and that his Apology and that of Quadratus “the hearer of the Apostles’’ were the cause of the rescript of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus. As however the Syriac version of the Apology is addressed to Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, it has been suggested that Eusebius is in error, and that the Apology of Aristides Aristides. I. Bp. Lightfoot, PAi/éppians, Dissertation ‘St. Paul and Seneca’, 2. Justin Martyr, 4p. 11.13. 80a ody mapa maot Kadws elpnrat, Nar Trav Xpicriavav early. 3. Eusebius, 2. Z. tv. 3. Kal ’Aptorelins 58 muords dvinp rhs Kad’ Huds dpudpevos edoeBelas, ry Kodpdrw mapamdnolws vrép ris micrews drodoylar, éripwrjcas ‘Adpave Karadédoure. Lwgera Gé ye els deipo mapa weloros Kal 7 TovTov ypadpy. CH, IX. ] DISCOVERY OF ‘ARISTIDES’, 205 belongs to neither of the visits of Hadrian to Athens in the winters of A.D. 125-26 and 129-30, but to the early days of hissuccessor. ‘The discovery of this Apology, or rather of what it really consisted, is due partly to the Armenian fathers of the Lazarist Monastery at Venice, who published an Armenian version with a Latin translation of the earlier chapters, which M. Renan at once pronounced to be a production of the fourth century; and partly to two Cambridge scholars, Prof. Rendel Harris and Dean Armitage Robinson. The former discovered the Syriac version of the Apology in the convent of St. Catharine on Mt. Sinai in 1889, and the latter’s critical skill was by a happy accident enabled to recognise that the Greek of Aristides had been for centuries before the world in the speech put into the mouth of one of the characters in the popular Oriental Christian romance of Bavlaam and Josaphat, frequently attributed to St. John of Damascus (eighth century), but belonging probably to an even earlier date. So widely was it known in mediaeval Europe that it had been translated into Icelandic as early as the year 1200 A.D. The Apologist begins his address to the Emperor by stating that from natural religion he was led to believe in one God, whose attributes he describes. Man- kind, he adds, is divided into four races—Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and Christians. (In the speech in Barlaam and Josaphat this division is replaced by one more in accordance with Eastern ideas—worshippers of false gods, Jews, and Christians.) The errors of the Barbarians are first exposed, afterwards those of the Greeks, but a digression is made at the conclusion of the exposure of Hellenism to shew how degraded the Egyptians are in their gross forms of superstition and idolatry. The writer next remarks, “It is a matter of wonder, O King, concerning the Greeks, whereas they excel all the rest of the peoples in their manners and in their reason, how thus they have gone astray after dead idols and senseless images.” ‘The Jews are treated by Aristides with such marked tenderness as to make us think that he wrote before the breach between the Church and Synagogue was complete. They worship one God, have compassion on the poor, bury the dead, and do other things accept- 2096 TERTULLIAN’S APOLOGY. [CH. IX, able to God and well-pleasing tomen. Their chief error is that they do not really serve God, but rather the Angels. Aristides states first the belief the Christians have in one God, and secondly the purity of their lives. Their brotherly love is next described. When a Christian is poor the others fast for a day or two to get the means to relieve his necessities. The Emperor is invited to study the Christian writings and judge whether their apologist has spoken truly of them or not.} We are as it were transported to a different atmosphere when we peruse Tertullian’s masterly defence of the Chris- tian position. This is not an academic treatise addressed by a philosopher to an emperor of literary tastes, but a fierce polemic, written in time of persecution, to magistrates who refused to listen to a word in defence of Christianity and condemned the accused solely on their admission that they practised and refused to abandon a veligio illicita. Without professing to give even an outline of the arguments of Tertullian’s treatise, it may be well to state a few leading points in his defence of the Christian position. Tertullian is a writer with whom it is impossible always to agree, and who sometimes jars upon us: but no one, however repelled by his style, can deny his vigour, any more than he can refuse to admire the striking originality of his arguments because he is disinclined to accept them. With all his faults Tertullian is undoubtedly a writer of great genius, and his character is one of the most interesting studies in the history of the Church. His Apology commences by shewing the absurdity of condemning the Christians on the mere assumption that they were criminals worthy of death, and the illogicality of treating them differently from all other offenders against the law. The felon is tortured to confess his crime; the Christian, to deny it. Tertullian lays great Tertullian’s Apology. 1, Cambridge 7exts and Studies, vol. 1., No. 1. The most interesting topics discussed in the Introduction are: The style and thought of the Apologist (p. 3); The traces of a Christian Symbol (p. 14 and p. 23); The connexion of thought between Aristides and Celsus (p. 19) ; as well as the discussion as to the date of the treatise. CH. Ix.] CHRISTIAN TOLERANCE, 207 stress on the moral value of the Christian training: the very heathen admit this. ‘A good man’ they say ‘is Caius Seius, only that he is a Christian.’ ‘I am astonished’ says another ‘that a wise man like Lucius should become a Christian.’ In many cases the hated name is given when a man’s character is reformed. A more striking argument is supplied by Tertullian’s statement that “no one, not even a human being, will desire to be worshipped by any man against his will”. This strikes at the very root of the Pagan idea of religion being an affair of state. To the Christian the essence of religion is liberty of conscience, and this Tertullian concedes to allmen. ‘Tertullian is frequently held up as a typical bigot, but few remember to quote his noble words in favour of toleration: ‘Let one worship God; another Jupiter: let one raise his suppliant hands to the altar of Fides..... Seetoit whether this does not deserve the name of irreligion, to wish to take away the freedom of religion, and to forbid a choice of Gods, so that I may not worship whom I will, but be compelled to worship whom I do not will.” Like St. Paul, Tertullian believes that mankind received from God a natural enlightenment, and in the seventeenth chapter shews how men in phrases used in their common talk admit the existence of God. ‘God grant, ‘1 commend myself to God,’ and similar ex- pressions, are, he says, on every lip; and he adds the famous words, “O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae.”1 One of the finest examples of Tertullian’s style is when he contrasts the hypocritical religious honours paid to the Emperor by the heathen with the honest prayers of the Christians for his welfare; and one of the most curious indications of the change in feeling since the Apostolic age is his assertion that the Christians pray for the Emperor because they believe that when the Roman empire comes to an end the course of this world will be ended.? 1. Tertullian, Afo/. 17. 2, Neander in his Antignostikus gives an excellent summary of the Apology. 208 OBJECT OF THE APOLOGISTS. (CH. Ix. The Christian Apologies have an The Apologists historical interest rather than a practical Theologians, Value for us, inasmuch as the arguments are advanced to meet objections in many respects different from those used by the opponents of Christianity at the present day. The most cogent reasons for rejecting the Gospel, in the eyes of the vast majority of the heathen public, were—not the im- probability of a supernatural revelation, nor the defective character of the early records of the Church, but—the novelty of the religion, the calamities assumed to be occasioned by the abandonment of the worship of the gods of Rome, and the inferiority of our Lord to the sages and wonder-workers of antiquity. These objections are met with great power and eloquence by Tertullian, with conspicuous moderation and fairness by Minucius Felix,! and with much ingenuity by Arnobius and Lactantius; great stress being laid, especially by Tertullian, on the evidential value of contemporary Christian miracles.?. The prophetical writings of the Old Testament were considered to demonstrate the truth of Christianity; many, Theophilus of Antioch among others, being converted by the perusal of them. But the works of the Apologists contributed but little to the propagation of Christianity in comparison with the visible effects of its influence. The purity of the lives of the early Christians, their unshaken constancy in persecution, and their active benevolence, were most effectual proofs that the new religion was destined both to supplant and to destroy all the cults of the ancient world. ‘The stately fabric of the old heathenism, which in the first three centuries seemed impregnable, was fated to collapse before the end of the fourth, much in the same manner as the walls of the Canaanitish city fell down at the shout of conquering Israel. 1. It is a most remarkable fact that Minucius Felix makes no mention of Christ save in chapter 29, where he says ‘*‘ Nam quod religioni nostrae hominem noxium et crucem eius adscribitis, longe de uicinia ueritatis erratis, qui putatis deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse terrenum. Ne ille miserabilis, cuius in homine mortali speo omnis innititur ; totum enim auxilium cum extincto homine finitur.” From this, Baehrens, his latest editor, infers that Minucius did not accept the divinity of Christ. Praefatzo, p. xi. 2. Woodham, Z7etuliané Liber Apologeticus, c. iii. GRAPIT BIR «iX, THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH. THE question of the organization of The Church = the Christian Church in the earliest stages The Churches. Of its development is of great importance in view of the controversies of the present day; but before entering upon it, it is necessary to premise that it is subsidiary to one of much more permanent interest. The original conception of the nature of the Christian Church is naturally of far greater moment than the original position of its rulers ; the real point at issue being not whether a fixed order of government was from the first designed for the Christian community, but whether the unity of the Church was or was not an essential part of the scheme of its Founder.} Either our Saviour left His followers certain precepts, for the furtherance of which societies arose throughout the Roman empire, and in process of time became fused together into what was termed the Catholic Church;? or He formed His disciples into an essentially united body, branches of which soon sprang into life on all sides. In the former case the Church is a means devised by man to hand down a revelation from God; in the latter, a Divine Institution necessary to carry on the work begun by Jesus Christ. Now the unfolding of the Messianic ideal in the New Testament entirely supports the latter view. St. Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ implied that He was the Head of God’s divine Kingdom on earth, of which the disciples were subjects. To emphasise the sanctity of this Kingdom our Lord called it His Ecclesia—a name applied to the congregation of ancient Israel. Of this Ecclesia the Twelve were not so I. Illingworth, Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 32 ff. 2. The expression 7 Kafodtxi éxxAnola occurs first in Ignatius ad Smyrn. Vill. 2. oO 210 ESSENTIAL UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [cH.x. much rulers as spiritual ancestors, representatives not of the priestly caste in the Levitical tribe, but of the twelve patriarchs of ancient Israel. From the Apostles sprang the Christian Ecclesia, destined to take the place of the old chosen people as the one holy nation on earth, composed of men “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”. ‘Thus it was that the believers called one another ‘ Brethren’ and were styled the ‘People’ (Aaos) of God and ‘Holy’ (yor). This fundamental unity of the Church as the representative of the new Israel may therefore be assumed as an historic fact. But before giving any account of the organization of the early Church, it is necessary to define three stages in its development, in order that the student may recognise in what manner different offices or rites were either called into being or modified by circumstances. (1) In the days of the Apostles a Stages in the’ Christian society naturally consisted of a evelopment of a is : the Church. Very limited number of members, and in Rome and other great cities two churches may have existed in independence of one another. It has been conjectured that the Jewish and Gentile Christians frequently formed separate communities in the same town, and that these did not unite in some cases for many years.? It is hardly reasonable to expect 1. Even Harnack, who frequently speaks of ‘the churches’, admits that the Christians realised from the first that they belonged to the Kingdom of God, but he places this in heaven rather than on earth. ‘‘ There is” he says ‘‘a holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is her destination.”” Azst. of Dogma (Engl. Transl.), vol. 11., p. 73. On the word £cclesta and the use of the titles ‘ Disciple’ and ‘Apostle’ in the Gospel, see Hort, Zhe Christian Ecclesia. It is noticeable that Aristides in his Apology speaks of the Christians as a yyévos of mankind, and Tertullian in the last chapter of his 4po/ogy says ‘‘ The blood of Christians is their seed.” A few of the most important illustrative passages from the New Testament are St. Matth, xvi. 16—18, St. John i. 12, 13, Gal. iv. 19, I Cor. iv. 15, 1 Peter ii. 9, 10, etc. 2. Lightfoot, Galatians, p- 337: ‘‘This fact probably underlies the tradition that St. Peter and St. Paul were joint founders ; and it may explain the discrepancies i in the lists of the early bishops, which perhaps point to a double succession.” Milman, “7st. of Christiantty, vol. 1., p. 463, note: ‘*T am likewise confident that in Rome, as in Corinth, there were two com. munities, a Petrine and a Pauline, a Judaizing and a Hellenizing Church.” See, however, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. xxVi. CH. X.] ORGANIZATION GRADUALLY DEVELOPED, 2II that in these small and widely scattered churches there should have been any rigid uniformity either of organ- ization or discipline ; nor must we look for a permanent and unchangeable form of government in any particular society. The subject of outward organization naturally did not appear of paramount importance to the earliest believers, who lived in constant expectation of the second coming of our Lord. Before the Christians could feel justified in giving serious attention to the question of administration, they had to realise that the return of our Lord to this earth was to be less speedy than they had anticipated. Nevertheless a certain uniformity was inevitable, from the fact that each Christian community existed for the threefold purpose of worship, brotherly association, and care for the poor and needy. (2) In the second stage of the development of the Church we perceive a great strengthening of the union between the different Christian communities. Two common enemies—heresy and persecution—made unity indispensable. Communication between different churches became more frequent, and with it a tendency to increased uniformity in practice as well as in faith. We have now entered upon the age of the Church’s struggle with the Roman government, which is character- ised by the military severity of the discipline maintained among Christians. (3) The third stage is reached at the conversion of Constantine. ‘The Church thenceforward became a body recognised by the State, which exacted in return a certain uniform standard of faith, government, and practice. ra the Asastotis The position of the rulers of the age distinction Church naturally varied at each of the between clergy periods above mentioned. In the first and ok Ma age the laity seem to have exercised ' almost the same powers as the clergy. The Spirit manifested Himself in almost every member of the Christian body.! Naturally but little emphasis was attached to official status. In a society in which all lived in constant expectation of the end of the world, ttt Core xi. 777i ‘Aets xixt 6. 212 PRIMITIVE RULE OF CHURCHES. [cH. xX. and all might claim the primitive chavismata, no sharp line of demarcation could exist bétween administrators of churches and other believers. But we must not overlook the fact that there are from the first indications of a defined hegemony. It may be that it was our Lord’s intention to found in the Apostolic order a peculiar grade. The position of the Twelve in regard to the rest of the faithful is certainly at first one of recognised superiority. ‘They are acknow- ledged as leaders by their converts.! St. Paul perhaps claims for himself The Church absolute independence of this primitive modelled on the : , Synagogue. Oligarchy, but St. Paul’s was an excep- tional case. This hegemony, however, loses itself in very early times in forms of government more strictly representative and of more familiar structure. As a rule the synagogue seems to have been taken as a model of a Christian community.? Even in the Acts the Church of Jerusalem has presbyters who share with the Apostles in the adjudication of momen- tous questions;® it may be sitting merely as assessors, but of this there is no proof. Outside Jerusalem these Elders certainly rank highest in the official system of this early period. The conversion of Asia Minor is followed by the institution of local ecclesiastical senates, “elders in every city,” appointed by Paul and Barnabas themselves. It is not difficult to recognise in these “elders” the py of a Jewish synagogue.‘ In Gentile churches the officers cor- jdentity of responding to the Elders were called Drains: Bishops (émricxotros).5 We must be careful not to be misled by the use of this term. In later times it was restricted to the presiding Elder of a church and was considered to denote a separate order. In the apostolic age it was synonymous with presbyter, x. St. John xx. 22, 23. St. Markiii. 14. Acts v. 12, 133 vi. 2; viii. 14. 2. St. James (ii. 2) calls the Christian meeting cvvaywy%. Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, p. 116. 3: Acts mI 2A 22; 4. Acts xiv. 23. Hastings, Dect. of the Bible, art. ‘Bishop’. 5. Actsxx. 28. Tit. i.5—7. J. Ep. Clement, §44. The view that these officers were distinct from the beginning is upheld by Bernard, Pastoral Epistles (Camb. Gk. Test.) pp. Ivi. ff., not however with much SUCCESS. aoe - CH. x.] ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 213 and there is no mention of a single émicxomos in any church in the New Testament.! Closely connected with the Bishops were the Deacons.? This order is supposed to be derived from the seven appointed by the Apostles to assist them in the administration of the church funds. The name deacons is not employed on the occasion of the choice of the seven (though the phrase dvaxovety TpamréCats is used), and Philip, the only one of them mentioned in the later chapters of the Acts, is not called ‘the deacon’ but é« tav ém7d.2 From the Pastoral Epistles we gather that the deacons were subordinate to the bishops and assisted in administering the property of the churches. The Deacons, It would seem as though the presbyters or bishops and the deacons possessed administrative rather than what may be termed spiritual functions. The prophets and teachers are placed by St. Paul next to the Apostles, as men commissioned by the Holy Ghost to do the work of the ministry. Itisa remarkable fact that the Apostle does not name the presbyters, bishops, or deacons when he enumerates those who have received the gifts of the Spirit, and that on both occasions* he places the work of converting unbelievers and founding congregations first, and keeps the permanent government and instruction of the church in the back-ground.® If we put together the details as to church adminis- tration in different parts of the world furnished by the Spiritual gifts. 1. Eusebius, however, (4. £. 11. 4,) speaks of Timothy as first bishop of Ephesus (rparos thy émicxomhy ei\nxévat), and Titus of the churches of Crete. See Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. ‘Bishop’. Of the titles Presbyter and Bishop in the New Testament Bp. Wordsworth remarks, ‘‘ But this may be fairly said, that wherever the two are differen- tiated the title of ‘Bishop’ tends to be higher, and to be limited to a single person.” (Ministry of Grace, p. 119.) 2. Phil. i, 1. Butin 1 Tim. iii. 1, 8, the éwicxomos is mentioned in the singular, the didxovoc in the plural. Acts xxi. 8. See the note on Eusebius #. £#. 11. 1, in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 4. 1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. iv. 11. Consistently the Acts represents Paul himself as selected with Barnabas for missionary work by the action of the Holy Spirit on certain ‘‘ prophets and teachers”, Acts xiii. I, 2. 5. Lightfoot, PAclippians, Dissertation on ‘The Christian Ministry’. 214 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS, (CH. x New Testament and other early Christian writings, we shall probably be inclined to conclude Organization of that rigid uniformity of government was parr the not observed; but the scantiness of the New Testament: material at our command must make us cautious of drawing hastily any elaborate inferences in this matter, especially those of a negative character. In the Church of Jerusalem we find apostles, elder brethren,’ the seven,? and St. James the Lord’s brother as president in a position almost corresponding to that of the bishop in a later age. Here the episcopal system might seem to be in force.® ean At Corinth, on the other hand, a govern- orinth; : : A ment of quite different type is suggested. In the two Epistles to the Corinthians no local church officer is mentioned. The whole church is ordered by St. Paul to assemble to excommunicate an offend- ing member.# At their meetings to eat the Lord’s Supper there is no allusion to any officials or clergy. The spiritual gifts have been bestowed on all. The gifts of ‘prophesying’, ‘tongues’, ‘interpretation of tongues’, etc., mentioned as distributed in the Church are plainly unconnected with any official system.® Philippi ; At Philippi the “saints” are saluted i with “the bishops and deacons’’.® At Ephesus, as we understand from the Pastoral Epistles, there was a somewhat elaborate organiza- tion — bishops, deacons, church-widows, and ‘aged men’ (peoSvrepor), some of whom laboured in the word and teaching.’ The encyclical Epistle, how- ever, which in after times was associated closely with the name of Ephesus, makes no allusion to these functionaries. On the other hand we have here, besides the familiar ‘apostles’, ‘prophets’, ‘teachers’, the unusual nomenclature ‘pastors’, evangelists ’.° Jerusalem ; Ephesus ; 1. Acts xy, 22, 23. 2. Acts vi. 33 xxi. 8. 3. The list of the early bishops of Jerusalem is not reliable. Journal of Theol. Studies, July, 1901. It is perhaps more than a coincidence that the early Christians of Syria, like the first Mahommedans, desired to place a@ representative of the Founder’s family at their head. 4. 1 Cor. v. 4. 5. 1 Cor. xiv. 26 foll. 6. Phil. i. 1. 0% Time ty yy 8. Eph. il. 20; iv. II. cH. x.] APOSTLES AND PROPHETS. 215 In the Epistle to the Romans nothing is said of the organization of their church, although in speaking of the chavismata of the Spirit, St. Paul enumerates ‘ prophecy ’, ‘ ministration’, ‘he that teacheth’, ‘he that imparteth’, and ‘he that presideth’.? We have in this epistle an allusion to Phoebe the deaconess of Cenchreae,? shewing that the administration of females was fully recognised. In the treatise known as the ‘ Teaching aS Sopra of the Twelve Apostles’, the prophets are wav dbdexa ama the most important persons in the Church. ordhwy. They alone may ‘give thanks’ at the Eucharist ‘as they will’,® i.e. unfettered by the formularies, also cited. Itinerant preachers are here termed by the honourable name of apostles. An apostle is only allowed to remain one day, or if need be two; and if he remains three, he is to be deemed a false prophet. He is on no account to ask for money. Prophets and teachers are however to be supported by the church, if they wish to settle in any particular spot.® The Christians are also to elect as bishops and deacons “men meek and not loving money, and truthful and approved : for unto you do they minister the ministry of the prophets and teachers,...they are they which are set in honour among you with the prophets and teachers.”’® This remarkable work bears no address, but there is some ground for supposing that its first readers belonged to an Egyptian community, who had passed through Judaism to Christianity. St. Clement of In the one authentic letter of St. Rome. Clement of Rome, written about a.p. 96, we find a more pronounced distinction between Rome. 1. Rom. xii. 6—8. 2. Rom. xvi. f. 3. Didaché, c. x.: rots 68 rpophrats érirpere edxaporety Soa Gédovoy. 4. Jb., c. xi. mas 5¢ drdarodos épxduevos mpds tuas SexOjrw ws Kipios* od pevet 5¢ el uh jucpay wiav' édv dé 7H xpela, Kal rhv GAAnv’ Tpels be day pelry, Wevdorpodpyrns éoriv, Zb., c. xiii. : was 5 rpopyrns ddnOivds Oédrwv Kabjcbat pds buds Gitos éoriv Tis Tpophs avrov. woavrws diddoKados... Jb., c. xv. Bp. Wordsworth (A@inistry of Grace, p. 16) says of the ‘ Teaching’: ‘‘ The most noticeable feature...is the continuance of a charismatic and itinerant ministry of ‘ Prophets’ and ‘ Apostles’ side by side with a settled ministry of ‘ Bishops’ and ‘ Deacons’ ” a ae 216 CLEMENT ON CHURCH OFFICES. ([cH. x. clergy and laity. The spiritual charismata are no longer prominent. It is, however, worthy of notice that though St. Clement writes in the name of the church of Rome he nowhere speaks of himself as its bishop. Clement’s account of the Apostolic origin of church government is as follows: ‘“‘The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the Word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written con- cerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith’.’? (Isa. lx. 17, Lxx.) He further warns the Corinthians, “It will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblameably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe; for they have no fear lest anyone should remove them from their appointed place.’? The above passages make it im- possible to question the existence of a clerical order in the Church at a very early date. We have not, however, reached the period of church-government by a single bishop, although the office already existed in name. In the New Testament the word ésricKozros 1. Bp. Lightfoot’s translation of Clement Ep. J., c. 42. 25° 1h Cae : Dr. Wordsworth (Bp. of Salisbury), A/nistry of Grace, p. 119. For two very different views of this passage of St. Clement see Dr. Moberly’s Ministerial Priesthood, and Canon Henson’s vigorous attack on this work in a book of sermons entitled Godly Unton and Concord. . = : pbs i cH.x.]) | THE GUILD AND ITS ézicxomos. 217 is never used in the singular except in the Pastoral Epistles, where the context forbids us to assume that there was only one bishop in a church. We may now try to trace the steps by which government by a single bishop attained universal prevalence. In the early days of Christianity the pee of ve churches were institutions existing for the Primitive Church, PUrposes of charity, instruction, discipline, and worship. In many respects they resembled the numerous societies existing at this time throughout the Empire. When the government of Rome became a world-wide despotism, the ancient distinctions of rank and nationality gradually made way for the broader division of mankind into rich and poor. As local patriotism disappeared there arose an universal tendency in men towards combining together in various clubs and societies, in which the common worship of some deity together with meeting at certain regular intervals formed the bond of union.! It is a remarkable fact that in some cases the president of an épavos was called the émicxomos and its assembly the éexxrnoia. Although between the Christian bishop and the chief officers of the heathen guilds there were many essential points of difference, the administrative duties of both included the management of the funds of their respective societies.? 1. The Abbé Pillet (A7stoire de Sainte Perpétue) refers to de Rossi (Roma Sotteranea) to shew how ‘“‘ the infant Church profited by the Roman laws about clubs (€racpia:) or associations of the poor (tenuiores) formed especially to secure an honourable burial for their members”. 2. Hatch’s Bampton Lectures. Bp. Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers, Part II., vol 1. Renan, Les Apétres. Dr. A. Robinson says in his article ‘Bishop’ in the Zxcyclopaedia Biblica, ‘‘The theory that the Christian éricxoros derived his title and functions from those of the officers of the Greek guilds or municipalities has not been established.” Bp. Wordsworth (Ministry of Grace, p. 120) thinks that ‘‘ probably Dr. Hatch is right”. He remarks however that this need not lessen the spiritual conception of the Bishop’s office. ‘‘ His treasury was in fact God... .This thought is well put in the Didascalia (ed. Lagarde, 11. 27, p. 260): ‘It is right that you should make your oblation to the Bishop either in person or through the Deacons: for he knows who are afflicted and gives to each according to what is suitable, so that it will not happen that one should receive several times the same day....and others not at all’.” For clubs and societies in the Empire see Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 254. Cf. Tertullian, AZo/., cap. xxxviil. 218 THE CHURCH ELDERS. _ [cH x. The property of a Christian church Bishops assisted was in many cases considerable. In the ad eens ye Church of Rome by the middle of the church fands; Second century no less than forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub- deacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists, readers, and door-keepers, and more than fifteen hundred widows and poor persons, were supported by the faithful! The duty of managing the funds necessary for so complex an organization fell to the bishop, who naturally required the assistance of others. This was supplied by deacons, often, as at Rome, numbering seven, in memory of the seven appointed by the Apostles.2 The senior in age, standing, or ability, among the deacons was called the archdeacon, who was styled somewhat later ‘the eye of the bishop’, and who often succeeded him in office. The Christian Church had however The duty of higher functions than the distribution of Sisighed to the charitable funds. The instruction both presbyters; Of those who desired to become Chris- tians and also of the faithful, was necessarily an important duty. As in early days a high value was set upon the traditions of the Church,§ age was a great qualification for a teacher. Hence the older Christians in each community were its recog- nised instructors. The Pastoral Epistles direct that double honour is to be paid to the presbyters who labour in the word and doctrine. The presbyter or bishop (for the offices are as yet identical) is to be Svdaxtixos, ‘apt to teach’.4 Even in the days of the Apostles it was necessary that offenders should be punished by exclusion from the Church. It appears that in some instances the whole body of believers assembled for this purpose,® but the duty of judging and punishing offenders soon devolved upon a few of Discipline; Euseb., 1. Z. Vi. 43. On the value attached to tradition see Iren., Hager. Il., c. 3. 1 Tim. v. 17, iii. 2. I Cor. v. 4) 5- TP em Duchesne, Christzan Worship, cts Origin and Evolution, p. 344. CH. X.] ‘CLEMENTINE’ LITURGY. 219 the senior and more influential of the brethren. The Church, like the Synagogue, had her own tribunal. In the earliest days of the Church it is probable that the prophets took a prominent position in directing the worship of the Christians, but their place was soon occupied by the chief officials in each community. As the brethren brought their weekly contributions for the maintenance of the church, it was natural that the bishop and his deacons, who received them, should take an important part in the services of the day. From the foregoing remarks it may be seen that all things were tending to raise some one individual to fill the highest place in each church. The man to whom the control of the property of the community had been entrusted would doubtless be one of the presbyters, and would soon be recognised as the representative and head of his church. That this was the case can be proved by instituting a comparison between Justin Martyr’s account of a Christian service (A.D. 138 or 139), and the so-called Clementine Liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions. ‘This liturgy belongs to the age of persecution, since it contains a special prayer for the persecuting emperors, and is probably not later than the middle of the third century. Justin speaks of a president at the celebration of the Eucharist, but does not say definitely whether he means the bishop or not. But the Clementine Liturgy assigns the duty of presiding to the bishop, though it distinguishes him by the title of the elected bishop. He is also called chief priest (0 apyvepevs), a title applied in the earlier Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the ‘prophets’. With the presidency at the Eucharist the bishop also took upon himself the right of public teaching, and in some churches he alone was allowed to preach. The peculiar circumstances of the second century com- bined to increase the importance of the bishop in the churches throughout the world. And it is possible that the law by which every corporate body was required to have an ‘actor’ or representative may Worship. 1. Hammond, Liturgies, Eastern and Western, p. 41. a : a od 220 EPISCOPACY NECESSARY. [CH. x. have helped to make episcopacy universal in the Empire.! The Christians began at an early date rap tag ame fol to realise that their very existence de- different churches pended greatly on the completeness of in the face of their organization. Persecution convinced Persie: | them of the necessity of presenting an undivided front to the world without, and the prevalence of heresy shewed the need of checking all unauthorised teaching within. It is pos- sible that St. John had sought to strengthen the churches of Asia Minor against this two-fold danger by making the bishop the chief ruler of every Christian society. Ignatius’ ardent exhortations to obey the bishops and their presbyters were no doubt due to his conviction that the great hope of the Church lay in the readiness of her members to act in concert with their leaders. Seen in this light, his very forcible language on the subject of obedience to the rulers of the Church finds justification in the seriousness of the crisis.? It should, however, be borne in mind that in Ignatius the bishop is head of what now would be termed a parish rather than of a diocese. apni ee When Ignatius wrote® his epistles to universality of the churches of Asia the institution of episcopacy by end episcopal government was unquestionably or eceone contnrs, firmly established among the Christians ’ of that province. But it is not so easy to prove that this was already the case in all parts of the world. As, however, by the year 180 A.D. every church had its bishop, it may be useful to examine the causes of this uniformity. When persecution was raging in any particuiar church the believers needed the support and sympathy of others in their trials. zr. Wordsworth, of. czt., p. 120. Duchesne (Origznes du Culte Chr., p. 8) quotes Gaius in the D7gest, 111. 4. I. 2. See especially Aph. iv., Magn. vil. wpoxabnuévov rot értcxdmrov els rirrov Oeod, kat THv mpecBuTépwr eis TUToV cuvedpiov TwWY drogTé\wr, Kat Tav Siaxdvwyv, Tav éuol yAuKuTdrwv, wemirevpévwr Saxorviav "Inco Xpicrod. Magn. vi. 3. We assume on the authority of Bp. Lightfoot the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles; but see swgra, p. 115, note 6. _ CH. X.] ITS GROWTH INEVITABLE, 221 The Christians of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, for example, sent an account of their sufferings to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia. (a.v. 177.) Again, when the immediate disciples of the Apostles had passed away and false teachers were claiming Apostolic authority in support of their doctrines, the churches communicated with one another to enquire whether their traditions were in correspondence, or to convey warnings of the coming of some corrupter of the Truth. Thus, when the Montanists obtained a footing at Rome, Praxeas, an Asiatic, warned the bishop that they had been excommunicated in his country, and procured their condemnation.! In like manner, the question as to the correct date for the observance of Easter brought Polycarp to Rome to discuss the matter with Anicetus.? (a.p. 154.) This constant inter- communication between the most distant members of the Christian body would tend to the adoption of a uniform system of government, even if other circum- stances had not contributed to make the episcopate almost a necessity in every church, The practice of hospitality, in our days regarded as a pleasurable luxury, was an indispensable duty among the early Christians. When a believer entered a strange city he enquired for the Christian bishop, and the welcome accorded by him was the new-comer’s passport in the local fraternity. But as the Church increased in numbers, impostors were frequently in the habit of presuming upon the credulity of the Christians. To prevent this, it was customary for genuine Christians to travel with a certificate signed by the bishop as the repre- sentative of their church. In this way great in- fluence was acquired by the bishop, who, by simply Hospitality. 1. Praxeas himself fell into heresy. Tertullian’s scathing criticism of the part Praxeas took in expelling the Montanists is not wholly undeserved ; **Itaque duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit, prophetiam expulit et haeresim intulit, Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit.”—Adv. Praxeam, i. 2. Irenaeus’ letter to Victor, quoted in Euseb., . £. v. 24. 3. Even in the Pastoral Epistles it is said that a bishop must be dirdEevos. 1 Tim. iii. 2. Titusi. 8. 222 CHURCH ORGANIZATION IN AFRICA. [cu.x. refusing to grant ‘ letters of commendation’,! as they were called, could exclude a man from Christian fellowship in every part of the world. When it became the custom to hold councils to which the churches sent repre- sentatives, a further impetus was given to the growth of the episcopal form of government. The Christians soon came to regard their representatives at the Councils of the universal Church as their natural leaders. It will be observed that the growth of a uniform system of church government by bishops, priests and deacons, was the work alike of time and of circum- stances. In the Apostolic age the terms bishop and presbyter meant practically the same, and there was Councils. much variety in the way in which different churches were organized. Inthe next generation the Christians in Asia were certainly governed by bishops, assisted in spiritual matters by presbyters and in temporal by deacons; a system which was rapidly adopted elsewhere. By the end of the second century the episcopate was everywhere established. Called into being chiefly in order to pro- vide for organization and discipline, the presbyters or bishops soon found spiritual functions devolving upon them as well. As the manifestations of the chavismata disappear, they become exclusively responsible for the leadership of the spiritual exercises of their people. The firm establishment of a defined clerical order both attested and assisted the aim of the Christian Church to attain a permanent footing in the Empire. Although we are in this chapter dealing an Crrren properly with the origins of ecclesiastical organization, institutions, it may not be out of place to sketch briefly the organization of the African Church in the middle of the third century and the views of Cyprian on the subject, The great bishop must have built his theories on what was generally acknowledged to be the ancient constitution of the Christian Church, and his talent for organization must have been exercised on existing materials. That Cyprian increased the dignity of the clerical office in the eyes of all Christians 1. Literae communicatoriae, éricrodal cucrariKal. cH. x. ] CYPRIAN AND THE EPISCOPATE,. 223 is undeniable, but neither the episcopal rights and powers nor the conception of a Catholic Church were invented by him. He merely demonstrated the necessity of the former, and the practical reality of the latter. According to Cyprian every congregation under a bishop is an ‘Israel’ in itself, and the parallelism is worked out with the most minute exactitude. The title *sacevdos’ is applied not to the presbyters but to the bishop, who is the representative of the ‘priests’ of the Old Covenant. The presbyters as the successors of the Levites live on the offerings of the people, exempt from worldly cares. The doctrine of the Apostolic succession is expressly declared. When Matthias was ordained he was made a ‘bishop’, and every bishop, by the source from which he derives his office, is ‘the apostle of his flock’. The bishop is also judge of his people, and in this he is Christ’s vicegerent. ‘Those who disobey him are guilty of the sin of Korah, since all the laws up- holding the authority of Aaron were intended ultimately to apply to the Christian episcopate. This theory of the Christian Hierarchy, so far from being developed by Cyprian in the course of his struggle to maintain the discipline of the church of Carthage, is propounded in the earliest of his epistles written as bishop of Carthage. The African theory of church government in the third century as unfolded by him has been described by the late Archbishop Benson as “‘a legitimate development of the principles of the Apostolic Church, parallel with and analogous to the growing light on cardinal doctrines, which similarly nothing but use could illustrate”. Cyprian enumerates three requisites of a regular episcopate, and he adds that in Africa these were re- garded as essentials: (i) the choice of the bishops of the province assembled at the vacant see, (ii) the presence and support of the Plebs, and (iii) the judgment of God. What is meant by the last-named is uncertain; it may be that the very fact of a man being thus made a bishop is regarded as a judgment of God that he was worthy. 1. Cyprian, Z. Ixix. 8. See also Apost. Const. vitI., sec. ii. In the prayer for the bishop about to be consecrated, the high priests of the Old Covenant, Melchizedek, Aaron, &c., are especially mentioned. 224 OPPOSITION TO HIERARCHY. — [cu. x Although at this very time the Roman presbyters during the sixteen months vacancy of the see, after the martyr- dom of Fabian, seem to have naturally undertaken the administrative work which would otherwise have fallen to the bishop, in Cyprian’s writings the presbyters have no powers nor rights comparable to those of the episcopate. It is the bishops who meet for the govern- ment of the church, and the presbyters in common with the laity have merely the right of signifying their approval when the bishop is elected by his compro- vincials. ‘The deacons at this time, at Rome, where in accordance with Apostolic practice there were but seven, were, alike from their limited number and responsible financial duties, very prominent officials. To their care the bishop, Fabian, the contemporary of Cyprian, assigned the fourteen regions of the city. At Carthage the im- portance of this order is attested by the influence exercised by Felicissimus, and by the fact that they were styled ‘the third priesthood’.’ : The inherent dignity of the clerical about the power status was not established without several of theclergy: contests. ‘The first, Montanism, turned on Montanism; the nature of the spiritual gifts. The mon ee second, Novatianism, on the admission of penitents. The third, associated with the great name of Origen, affected the right of persons not ordained to teach in the Church. Montanism arose in Phrygia among the followers of a certain Montanus, who claimed a transcendent inspira- tion as a prophet.? (a.p. 130.) Montanus is alleged to have taught that the age of the Spirit had come, and 1. See the late Archbishop Benson’s Cyprian: his Life, his Times, his Work. For Cyprian’s view of the episcopate, p. 31 foll.; for the con- stitutional position of the presbyterate, p. 323 foll.; for the deacons at Rome, p. 67; for Felicissimus, p. 114 foll. Cyprian’s 67th epistle (ed. Hartel) is particularly referred to on p. 35 foll. The points of difference between the Cyprianic view of a bishop and the modern idea are brought into contrast. 2. Eusebius (Z. Z. tv. 27, v. 14) dates the rise of Montanism about A.D. 182; Epiphanius, A.D. 135 and 157; the Chronzcom Paschale, A.D. 182. M. de Soyres, in his Essay on Montanism, thinks Montanus began to preach A.D. 130. I am greatly indebted to this Essay for many valuable hints on the subject of Montanism. CH. X.] ANTI-CLERICAL SCHISMS. 225 that Christ’s promises about the Paraclete were fulfilled in himself. “wo prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla, left their husbands to follow him, and prophesied to the great edification of the Phrygians. The Catholic bishops of Asia considered them to be possessed by evil spirits, and tried to exorcise them, but this was not permitted by the Montanists. The fanaticism spread, and many of the more ardent Christians embraced the doctrine of the new dispensation of the Spirit. The Lyonnese martyrs wrote from their prison to beseech the bishop of Rome not to quench the Spirit by undue severity to the Montanists. (A.D. 177.) In Africa, Tertullian embraced the new opinions; and it has been asserted that the famous martyrs, Perpetua, Felicitas and their companions, were among those who held Montanist views. Montanism appears to have been embraced in Rome and Carthage by a party which was opposed to the growing power of the clergy. In recognising the right of their so-called prophets to take a position in the Church above the bishops, the followers of Montanus endeavoured to restore what they imagined to be a feature of the Apostolic age, by making authority yield to spiritual illumination. They resembled the Quakers in their refusal to recognise that any spiritual gifts are conferred by ordination, and in seeking the guidance of direct inspiration on all occasions. ‘Their doctrine, that those who had committed deadly sin could not be restored te the visible Church by any human authority, was in conflict with the claim made by the Catholic clergy to re-admit to Christian communion those who had fallen.’ Their condemnation of all pleasure and amusement, as well as of second marriages, proves that they aimed at the ideal of a Puritan Church, and a more exclusive 1. For the views cf a Montanist on the subject of Church discipline see Tertullian’s De Pudicitia, The best side of this primitive Puritanism is seen in the visions of Perpetua and Felicitas recorded in the Acs of their Martyrdom, recently edited by Prof. Rendel Harris. The Abbé Pillet (Hist, de Ste. Perpétue, p. 54) vigorously defends Perpetua and Felicitas against the charge of Montanism. Mgr. Freppelin his 7evtu//ian suggests that the author of the Acta was a Montanist. The question is decided by the Abbé on purely 2 frierz grounds: ‘‘1l’Eglise est infallible dans ses jugements, qui ont pour objet la canonisation des saints.” bs 226 METHOD OF CHOOSING BISHOPS. [cu. x. Christianity. The subsequent triumph of the bishops and clergy was in this case the triumph of a wider conception of the nature of the Church. Novatianism was the result of a series of struggles in Rome and Carthage, which are related in another chapter. It culminated in the election of Novatianus to the Roman see in opposition to Cornelius. (A.D. 251.) The Novatians denied the power of the Church to re-admit grievous sinners, but in other respects they were scrupulously orthodox. At Alexandria the question assumed The case of a very different form. It is characteristic Dewetrius, of the two churches that at Rome the right to rule and at Alexandria the right to teach was the source of the dispute. Origen was the greatest scholar in the Church of the third century. His lectures were attended by multitudes, and his Scriptural studies were the marvel of his age. But he was a layman, and by an act of youthful fanaticism had rendered himself ineligible for holy orders, Demetrius, the Alexandrian bishop, no doubt jealous of Origen’s fame and possibly also suspicious of his orthodoxy, acted with so great animosity that Origen was forced to leave the city. He allowed his friends, the Palestinian bishops, Novatianism, to ordain him a presbyter, and returned to Alexandria. (A.D. 231.) Demetrius drove him from the city, and he was not allowed to return, even after the accession of his friend and pupil Heraclas to the episcopate; nor did his successor Dionysius, though he greatly admired Origen, reverse the act of Demetrius. Election and church elected the bishop, the presbyters, and other inferior ministers? In some instances, however, the clergy are found nominating the candidates for offices in the Church, and the people 1. Chap. XI. 2, The subject of election in the early Church is beset with diffic ulties, In the election of the seven deacons the people chose them and the Apostles gave them their office. (Acts vi. 3—6.) See the late Dr. Hatch’s article on ‘Ordination’ in the Dzctzonary of Christian Antiquities. As a rule the whole fraternity of every J. ad “in ee ee ie ~ a tee rin (ea 4 7 cH.x.] METHOD OF CHOOSING BISHOPS. aay. confirming their choice.! It seems unquestionable that the bishop presided at all ordinations and usually at baptisms.” But it has been debated whether in the earliest days the bishop entered office by virtue of a consecration, or whether he exercised his function ex officio as president of the presbyteral college. It must not be forgotten that many, even Roman Catholic writers, consider that there is still no inherent superiority of a bishop over a presbyter, but that both are members of the same order. To this day in the Roman Catholic Church the three chief orders in the ministry are not Bishops, Priests and Deacons, but Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons.? Yet where we have record of any con- secration in the early period the newly-elected bishop receives it from the bishops of the province. With one doubtful exception we find no single case of a bishop being consecrated by presbyters.4 There was no necessity for a man to pass through all the lower offices before attaining the priesthood or even the episcopate.> Never- theless it was considered highly desirable that ministers 1. Sometimes the reverse was the case, and the right of approval of the popular choice rested with the bishop or with the clergy. From Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 44, it seems that after the first appointment of ministers by the Apostles, the people assented to the choice made by men of repute (€AAoyluwy avipwy cuvevdoxnadens rijs éxxAnolas wdons). 2. Ignatius ad Smyrn., c. 8: ovk éébv éoriv xwpls Tod értoxdbrov, obre Bamrifey, ore dydrny roety. 3. The Rev. J. J. Lias, in an article in the 7heological Monthly, Feb. 1890, quotes Morinus de Sacris Ordinationibus. ‘The majority of the Schoolmen were of opinion that ‘‘ Episcopatum per se nihil aliud dicere quam officium, dignitatem, potestatem, auctoritatem sacerdoti datam multo ampliorem et augustiorem per consecrationem.” 4. Bingham (Axzzq., bk. I1., ch. iil., § 5) says that some quote Jerome (Ep. 85, 4d Zvagr.) to prove that the presbyters of Alexandria ordained their own bishop to the time of Heraclas and Dionysius, but he thinks (perhaps rightly) that Jerome only refers to the election and not to the cons secration of the bishop. But see also Bp. Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, pp. 135 ff., who considers that both at Rome and Alexandria “‘ there were at first only two orders, the governing order acting normally as a corporate body or college”. (p. 142.) | 5. The case of Cyprian is an example of promotion from a layman to the priesthood without passing through the diaconate. Ambrose was elected bishop of Milan before he was even baptized. Wordsworth, op. cit., p. 130. P2 228 ADMISSION OF CONVERTS. [CH. X. in the Church should work their way upwards to higher positions, and promotions per saltum were looked upon with disfavour. Such ordinations were forbidden in the Eastern Church at the Council of Sardica (a.p. 343); but the practice continued in the Latin Church till the ninth century.! In the earliest days of the Faith a convert was sometimes admitted to the full privileges of a Christian without any previous probation. All that was required before bap- tism was a belief in Christ ;? nor is there any mention in the New Testament of a period of instruction preceding the administration of the rite of Baptism. When, how- ever, the Church became a more organized society, it was considered advisable that those who desired to become Christians should submit to a course of pre- paration before being finally enrolled as members of the Church. This period of instruction and probation naturally varied in different churches, and sometimes extended over three years.‘ A person who desired to become a Christian was asked in the assembly of the church from what motives he made the request. He was further examined as to his calling in hfe. If he practised an unlawful profession, he was told that he Converts and Tests. Catechumens. 1. See the evidence quoted in the Responsto Archiepiscoporum Angliae, c. XIII, note 2. In Rome it was customary to ordain sub- deacons intended for the priesthood, deacons, and priests, at the same service. (Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 355, Engl. Trans.) 2. Acts viii. 37. The confession of the eunuch of Candace to Philip is not found in the best MSS. It is, however, a very ancient Western addition. Rom. x. 10, ordmare 6¢ duoroye’rat els owrnplay may imply a public baptismal confession. 3. In the Acts the following are said to have been baptized: The converts on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 41. The Samaritans who believed Philip’s preaching, Acts viii. 12. Simon Magus, Acts viii. 13. The eunuch of Candace, Acts viii. 38. St. Paul, Acts ix. 18. Cornelius and his companions, Acts x. 47, 48. Lydia and her household, Acts xvi. 15. The jailor at Philippi and his household, Acts xvi. 33. Crispus with all his house, and many of the Corinthians, Acts xviii. 8. The disciples of the Baptist at Ephesus, Acts xix. 5. 4. The Council of Elvira, canon 42, fixes two years as the period fora person to remain a Catechumen. The Afostolic Comstitutions (VIII., c. 47) make it three years. CH..X. INSTRUCTION OF CONVERTS. 229 must either abandon it,’ or give up all idea of being accepted. If all seemed satisfactory he was admitted by the imposition of hands to the rank of a Catechumen. It has been inferred that there were no less than four orders of Catechumens: those who were instructed privately outside the church; tlie ‘Hearers’, who were permitted to listen to sermons and the reading of the Scriptures; the ‘ Kneelers’, who were allowed to remain till the prayer for the Catechumens; and lastly the ‘Competentes’, or the immediate candidates for Baptism.? This somewhat complicated system of classification does not seem to have been generally received, and the Catechumens were usually divided into two great classes, the ‘Audientes’ and the ‘Competentes’. Those who had been received as Catechumens were committed to the charge of the Catechist, an officer of the church, not necessarily in holy orders. The unity of God and His relation to the world was the first doctrine on which the Catechist insisted, then followed instruc- tion as to the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. Morality, the duty towards God and man, and the importance of purity of life, were next inculcated. The reading of Scripture by the Catechumens was encouraged, and in some churches a course of Scriptural study was prescribed. Athanasius says that the books read by the Catechumens were the Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd of Hermas.2 From Bede we gather that the Catechumens of more ancient times were expected to be able to repeat portions of the four Gospels from memory. The ‘Disciplina During the period of instruction, the Arcani’. Catechumens learned that there were secrets which were only committed to the baptized. Method of instruction. 1. All callings which encouraged immorality, idolatry, or theatrical or gladiatorial exhibitions, were considered unlawful. Const. Eccl. x disciples to repeat in memory of Him, has always been regarded with the deepest reverence. This Sacra- ment, instituted on the most solemn night of our Lord’s earthly ministry, was from the first regularly repeated by His grateful disciples. The ‘Breaking of Bread’ is mentioned amongst the most important religious duties of the Church at Jerusalem. When St. Paul preached to the believers at Troas, they had assembled by night to break bread on the first day of the week.? The Corinthians were taught by the Apostle that the loaf which they broke was the Communion of the Body of Christ, and the cup which they blessed was the Communion of His Blood.’ This Sacrament seems to have been so natural a part of a Christian’s life that the writers of the New Testament seldom allude to it. In the Gospel according to St. John its institu- tion is not so much as mentioned, though the existence of the Sacrament is considered by some to be assumed by the Evangelist to have been known by his readers. This circumstance, added to a natural reticence on so sacred a mystery, accounts also for the comparatively meagre statements on this subject in the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers.‘ The difficulty of defining exactly the character of the Eucharistic Service in the age of the Apostles is enhanced by the fact that it was either preceded or followed by a meal called the Agape; which, however, in the second century was not considered to be an integral part of the Sacrament.® As Waterland very properly points out, it is doubtful if St. Paul means the Eucharist or the Agape by the term ‘Lord’s Supper’,® and whether the Sacrament is not always spoken of in the New Testament as the ‘Breaking of Bread’. If it appears repugnant to our modern ideas as to the reverence with which this Sacrament should be regarded, that it should have The Agape. 1. Acts ii. 42, 46. 2. Acts xx. 7, 1%. ger Cor x. 16, 4. For Patristic testimony on the Eucharist, see Hebert’s Zhe Lora’s Supper: Uninspired Teaching. 5. Tertullian, 4Zo/., c. 39. Clement Alex., Paedag. Il. 1, 4 6. Waterland, Ox the Eucharist. CH. Xx.] THE LOVE-FEAST. 233 formed part of a meal, we must not forget that it was instituted as such by our Lord, and that by the be- lievers in the days of the Apostles the spiritual presence of Christ at all times was fully realised. But this high ideal could not be maintained, and the abuses of the Agape in the church of Corinth shewed that the time had come to separate the Eucharist from it. It has been suggested by Bp. Lightfoot, Separation of the that when Pliny’s action in Bithynia the Agape. forced the Christians to abandon the Agape, they began to make a distinction between the common meal and the Eucharistic service.’ In Justin Martyr’s description of a Christian assembly there is no mention of the Agape, and in process of time it ceased to exist in the Church, though traces of it are found in the fifth century. Tertullian testifies that even in his time it was attended with abuses, and though some allowance must be made for his Montanist opinions when he wrote the treatise de Jejuniis, he probably expresses the opinion of many members of the Church in his day on the subject of the Agape.? Once the Eucharist stands alone, it is easier to trace its subsequent development till we arrive at the period of fixed liturgies. The successive testimonies of St. Paul, the Tcaching of the Twelve Apostles, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and the Apostolic Constitutions, are the best introduction to a study of the subject. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians History of the St, Paul portrays a Christian assembly Eucharistic met for the purpose of eating the Lord’s (a) St. Paul; Supper. Every man brought his own food, and the celebration of the Eucharist was part of the supper. Already, however, there were signs that the reverence due to so solemn a ceremony as par- taking of the Bread and Wine in memory of the Saviour’s action “the same night that He was betrayed” was likely to be lost in the excesses of a common meal. The Corinthians were not able to realise the high ideal 1. Apostolic Fathers, Part II., vol. 1., pp. 52 and 386. 2. Kurtz, Church History, § 36. Tertullian, De Jejun.,c. 1. 234 EARLY EUCHARISTIC PRAYERS. _ [cH. x, of the presence of our Lord at every Christian gathering, and their celebration of the Lord’s Supper was disgraced by ostentation on the part of the wealthy, and often by scenes of drunkenness.! The awful reproofs and warnings of St. Paul against the abuse of the Sacrament must be read by the light of these circumstances.? awrbe ee In the Teaching of the Twelve A postles @) ’ we have the form of thanksgiving over the Cup and the Loaf, which are interesting as shewing a primitive conception of the doctrine of the Eucharist. The thanksgiving concerning the Cup is given first: “We thank Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be glory for ever.” The formulary over the Bread broken («Adcya) im- mediately follows: “We thank Thee, O Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be glory for ever. Just as this broken bread was scattered over the hills and having been gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom. For Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.’ Although Clement does not directly (¢) Gementof allude to this Sacrament, his genuine letter to the Corinthians has an important bearing on the subject from the frequent use of Jewish sacrificial terms.4. The liturgical form of a newly re- covered portion of the letter led Bishop Lightfoot to infer that it formed part of a prayer used by Clement in the Roman church.° 1. 1 Cor. xi. 17—22. 2. 1 Cor. xi. 27—30. Ch. ix., Hitchcock and Brown’s Trans]. It should however be noted that the rite is here incomplete; the prophets may give thanks ‘as they please’: it is called ‘a sacrifice’, but there is no mention of conse- crated elements, Zxcyclopaedia Bibl., art. ‘ Eucharist’. 4. Hebert, Zhe Lora’s Supper: Uninspired Teaching, vol. 1., p. 17. mwpoopopa...émrirehetobat, HD. to Cor., Cc. 40, 41. 5. Bp. Lightfoot (Sz. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p wi6ey remarks on the use of the word éxrevjs. éxrevys is a part of the a ritual, CH. Xx.] A PRIMITIVE SERVICE. 235 ; Justin Martyr in his Apology gives a ’ full description of the celebration of a Christian Eucharist.1 He says that after a baptism it was the custom to offer prayers for the newly enlightened convert (rod dwricGévros), and for the brethren to salute one another with a kiss of peace. Bread, water and Wine (7oT7ptov bdaTos Kal Kpduatos) were then brought to the presiding minister (0 mpoeotws), who gave praise and glory to God through the name of the Son and the Spirit, and a thanksgiving (evyapiotia) for men having been thought worthy to receive these things from Him. During the thanksgiving the people kept silence, saying only the Amen. The deacons distributed the Elements and carried them to the houses of those who were absent. This Service also took place every Sunday, because on that day our Lord rose from the dead. Offerings were made for the benefit of the fatherless, the widows, the sick, strangers, and prisoners.? (@) Justin Martyr son In the treatise De Corona Mailitis (@) Tertullian} Tertullian informs us that celebrations took place at night, and also just before dawn, and that great reverence was shewn to the consecrated Elements. The Christians in his days were very careful to let no fragment of the bread or drop of the wine fall to the ground. He also speaks of oblations for the dead and in commemoration of the martyrs.® I. Justin Martyr, Apology, 1., cc. 65—67. 2. Mr. Hammond (Liturgies, Eastern and Western) enumerates nine points in this account, with all of which zz thezr order the Clementine Liturgy exactly corresponds: (1) Lections from the Old and New Testa- ments, (2) Sermons, (3) Prayers for estates of men (said by all), (4) The Kiss of Peace, (5) Oblation of the Elements, (6) Very long (émi modv) Thanksgiving, (7) Consecration with words of Institution, (8) Intercession said by the celebrant and all the people, (9) Communion. 3. De Corona Militts, c. iii. : ‘* Eucharistiae sacramentum in tempore victus, et omnibus mandatum a domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec de aliorum manibus quam de presidentium sumimus. Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis, annua die facimus...... Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur.” In addition to this, Tertullian gives the following particulars regarding the Eucharist: (1) It was frequent, (2) Re- ceived into the hands, (3) Reserved and carried home, (4) Received daily at home. 236 THE CLEMENTINE LITURGY. (cH. x. (f) The Shortly after the middle of the third (Apostolical century the Apostolical Constitutions de- onan" scribes the order of a Christian service, and also gives the text of a liturgy generally known as the Clementine. The latter is of great length, but well worthy of attention as illustrating the worship of the Church in days of persecution. ‘The laity are ordered to take their seats in silence, the men on one side and the women on the other. The reader standing in the midst is to read from the Old Testament, and from Epistles or Acts, and afterwards a deacon or priest is to read the Gospel. When this is finished the door-keepers (zvAwpol) are directed to keep the entrance of the men, and the deaconesses that of the women. Thus far the Missa Catechumenorum has been celebrated; now begins the Mass of the Faithful. The Catechumens and penitents are to go out. The remaining worshippers are to arise and pray, turning to the east. Some of the deacons are now to bring the consecrated Elements, and the others to attend to the people and maintain silence. The next act is the kiss of peace, after which the deacon is directed to pray for the whole Church and the whole world, for the presbyters, the Bishop, and the Emperor. After this the Bishop (who is here called the High Priest) blesses the people in the words used by the Priests in blessing Israel. He then prays, saying: “O Lord, save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance whom Thou hast purchased with the precious blood of Thy Christ, and hast called them a royal priesthood and an holy nation.” This is followed by the consecration of the Elements and by all present making their communion in both kinds.} From the earliest times the Church exercised the right of excluding from her assemblies and from all intercourse with believers those who transgressed her laws. The principle of all ecclesias- tical punishment was degradation. ‘Thus the offending cleric lost his privileges and was ranked among the Discipline. 1. Const. Apost., lib. 1., c. 57, and lib. vill. pass. For the Clemen- tine Liturgy, see Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Eastern), pp: 3—30. The children received the Communion before the rest of the laity, Const. Apost., VIII. 13. = - agi ker cH. x.) PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE, 237 laity, the layman became a catechumen, the catechumen was punished by his baptism being deferred. For very serious offences the Church inflicted the terrible punish- ment of total excommunication. Idolatry and the grosser sins of impurity in the case of baptized persons were often considered as unpardonable in this world. We have noticed the harsh views of Tertullian on these points. The stern Spanish council of Elvira punishes such offences with perpetual excommunication: “ Nec in finem dandam esse communionem.” Catechumens were far more leniently treated than baptized Christians, postponement of baptism being the heaviest sentence inflicted upon them, It will be noticed that the punish- ments of the early Church were purely spiritual. The offender was excluded from the Christian Society—that was all. Yet so terrible did it appear to a Christian, that we read of men submitting to a penance of ten or twenty years in order to obtain re-admittance to the Church. ‘Tertullian eloquently describes this penance to consist of confession of sin, abstinence from all pleasure, and constant prayer and fasting; he says that the penitent ought to fall to the earth and implore the presbyters, to spend hours on his knees before God’s altars, and to implore the brethren to pray for him.* No greater testimony can be given to shew the power of Christian influence over the minds of the men who entered the Church in the days of persecution, than the merciful severity of ecclesiastical discipline and the sorrow of those who were deprived of Christian privileges. The age in which the Church won onaty of, her place in the world was infamous for , its profligacy. The virtues of ancient Greece and Rome had been born of patriotism and nourished by simplicity of life. The domination of Rome made patriotism illegal, and luxury had displaced simplicity. The most significant sign of the degeneracy of the age was the contempt which had fallen upon the institution of marriage. Family life became almost impossible in a corrupt society in which divorce was 1. De Poenitentia, c 9. 238 SECOND MARRIAGES. . _ [cH. x. facilitated by the law and employed on the most frivolous pretexts. It was the Church’s mission to restore the home to the world. Our Lord’s precepts on the subject of the indissoluble character of the marriage tie were loyally followed by the Church of the second and third centuries, and an extreme party in the Church considered second marriage unworthy of a Christian, the Montanists going so far as to regard it as an actual sin. In thus insisting upon the sanctity of marriage, Christianity gave to woman a new dignity; the union of Christians was regarded as existing for the purpose of mutual help and encouragement in spiritual as well as temporal matters, and mixed marriages between Christians and heathens were strongly depre- cated.!. With this lofty ideal of Christian marriage there was a corresponding care of purity of life. The theatre was sternly interdicted, both on account of the cruelty of the gladiatorial games and also of the ap- palling indecency of the heathen spectacles. Simplicity and modesty of attire were very strongly inculcated, and everything was done to draw a sharp line dividing the purity of the Church from the laxity of heathen life and custom. Slavery was an integral part of ancient society, and though incompatible with the doctrines of the Gospel it could not be destroyed till the majority of civilised mankind under Christian influence condemned it as an insult to humanity. The early believers condemned idolatry, impurity, and the cruelty of the arena, with unflinching courage; but they shewed prudence in not attacking an institution which seemed a necessary part of the constitution of society. To the primitive Christian, whose hopes were centred in Christ, the loss of liberty did not appear so terrible as it does to ourselves ; indeed St. Paul’s exhortation to slaves has ever been Christianity and Slavery. Yr. Tertullian, Ad Uxorem, ul. §. In another place he interprets St. Paul’s words, ‘cui vult nubat tantum in Domino,” I Cor. vii. 39, asa prohibition of marriage with a heathen. (Contra Marcionem, v. 97.) See Pillet, Perpétue, p. 91. St. Cyprian in his treatise De Laps¢s says, *‘Jungere cum infidelibus vinculum matrimonii, prostituere gentilibus membra Christi.” * a ae ee ee CH. x.] CHRISTIANITY AND THE CATACOMBS. 239 interpreted to mean that a slave would do well to refuse liberty even if the chance of freedom should present itself. But, even though the early Church did nothing to emancipate the slave, she performed an incalculable service to liberty by raising his condition. St. Paul’s short letter to Philemon, containing the words ‘‘ No more a slave, but a brother’’,? sounded the death knell of the worst evils of slavery. In the Primitive Church the baptized slave was the equal of the freeman; he might even be called upon to rule, and none would think it shame to obey. If he confessed Christ through suffering, the free-born Christian considered it a privilege to minister to his wants: if he obtained the martyr’s crown, the members of the Church vied with one another in doing him honour.’ The Catacombs are to early Chris- tianity what Herculaneum and Pompeii are to Pagan antiquity. They reveal the inner life of the Christian community at Rome during the first three centuries of our era. Throughout the middle ages the Catacombs, with one exception, were entirely unknown, and remained undiscovered till 1578. It is impossible to doubt that they contain genuine records of the first days of the Church. These cemeteries give a striking picture of the effects of the influence of the Faith on the first believers. Social distinctions are completely effaced in the tombs of the early Christians, only two of the inscriptions making any allusion to the condition of a slave or free man. Labour is honoured (an important fact in an age when manual work was the duty of a slave), craftsmen at their work being represented in the frescoes which adorn the tombs. Family affection is a very notable feature in many of the inscriptions. The favourite Christian symbols are—Christ depicted as the Good Shepherd, the Anchor, The Catacombs. 1. 1 Cor. vii. 21, GAN’ ef kal Stvacat édeVOepos yerécOat paGdrov Xpiicat. 2. Philemon, 16. For the opinions of Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, respecting slavery, see Pressensé, Christian Life and Practice in the Early Church, p. 436, Eng. Trans. 240 DANGERS OF CREDULITY. [cH x. and the Fish, the Greek word ius forming the initials of ’Incots Xpictos Ocod Lids SarTnHp.1 ; Martyrdom was the means by which Dae ‘© the Church won her most conspicuous triumphs, and was honoured accordingly. The more ardent spirits among the brethren longed earnestly to obtain the martyr’s crown. To have con- fessed Christ in persecution was to have won a glory second only to that attained by those who died for the Faith. The prison doors were besieged by crowds of believers, anxious to pay their respects to those who were suffering for conscience sake. The graves of the martyrs were frequented by pious Christians, and the day on which they suffered was celebrated as the birth-day of their glory. Imprisoned confessors issued commands to the churches, which were regarded almost as inspired utterances. Martyrology was the most popular literature in the early Church. Although the great honour paid to martyrdom was not unattended by serious evils,? it unquestionably proved a great support to those who were called upon to act as the champions of the Faith in the days of persecution. os It must not be supposed that the early culy Christians, Christians were absolutely free from the superstitions of their age. ‘The belief in daemons was almost universally accepted, and much of the hatred of idolatry is attributable to the fact that Christians considered a false god to be not an unreality, but a malignant spirit. The exorcists were a recognised order in the Church, and the energumens, or possessed persons, had a place among the penitents. Many Chris- tians were believed to have the power of working 1. De Pressensé, Christian Life and Practice tn the Early Church. A convenient work on the subject of the Catacombs is Subterranean Rome, an epitome of De Rossi’s discoveries, by J. Spencer Northcote and W. R. Brownton. 2. I allude to the belief that martyrdom would atone for sin, the rash way in which fanatics sought death by insulting the magistrates or breaking idols, the disorders caused to the Church in St. Cyprian’s time by pardons being granted in such rash profusion by the confessors to ex- communicated offenders, and the impostures described by Lucian in his Pervegrinus Proteus. cH. X.] SUPERNATURAL TERRORS. 241 miracles; visions were by no means unfrequent.: The Eucharist was regarded with ever-increasing awe, and as the primitive simplicity of the original rite dis- appeared, its power to injure the unworthy was con- sidered fully as great as the benefit it conferred upon the worthy recipient.? It was the same with Baptism— 1. Neander (Church History, vol. 1., p. 103) gives many instances of the universal belief of the early Christians that they were able to exercise supernatural powers. Justin Martyr (AZo/. 1.) says that the name of Christ expels demons, and indeed this is one of the favourite arguments with the Apologists, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, etc. It is worth observing how Tertullian in his treatise On Baptism shews that waters are naturally the abode of evil spirits: ‘sine ullo sacramento immundi spiritus aquis incumbunt.” (c. 5.) Irenaeus, in his second book, Against Heresies, speaks of gifts of healing, and the dead being raised by Christians. Tertullian relates that many came to the true God by means of visions, De Anima, 24. Origen, Hom. in Joann., xx., c. 28: ov6é yap Sivarac tuprav dpbarpmods avoitat ) Taira Ta onuela troety, & Kal dvayéyparra, av kal txvn Kat relupara év rats éxxrAnolas dvduare “Inood wéxpe viv ylveras. The question as to when miracles ceased in the Church is a very difficult one. We are compelled to accept one of two alternatives: either that miraculous powers have never been withdrawn, or that they lasted only so long as the charismata of the Apostolic age. See Dr. Edwin Abbott’s Phzlomythus. From what I have read and heard I believe that the most striking analogies with the Early Church are to be found in the record of mission work in China. The following passage from Zhe Lzfe of Pastor Hsz (11.) might be a description of a similar event in the 2nd century :—‘‘ Without hesitation he went to his distressed wife, and laying his hands upon her, in the name of Jesus, commanded the evil spirits to depart and torment her no more, Then and there the change was wrought. To the atonishment of all except her husband, Mrs. Hsi was immediately delivered. Weak as she was, she realised that the trouble was conquered. And very soon the neighbourhood realised it too. For the completeness of the cure was proved by after events. Mrs. Hsi never again suffered in this way. And so profoundly was she impressed, that she forthwith declared herself a Christian and one with her husband in his life-work. The effect upon the villagers was startling. Familiar as they were with cases of alleged demon- possession more or less terrible in character, the people had never seen or heard of a cure, and never expected to. What could one do against malicious spirits? Yet here, before their eyes, was proof of a power mightier than the strong manarmed. It seemed little less than a miracle. ‘Who can this Jesus be?’ was the question of many hearts. ‘No wonder they would have us, too, believe and worship.’ Some did follow Mrs. Hsi’s example, and turn to the Lord. Regular Sunday services were established, and idolatry in many homes began to relax its hitherto unquestioned sway.” 2. A good example of the terror with which this Sacrament was regarded is found in the case of a man who had been baptized by heretics, mentioned by Dionysius of Alexandria, Euseb., H. 2. vil. 9. For miracles in connexion with the Eucharist see Euseb., A. 2. vi. 44, and Cyprian De Lapsis 25 sq. The doctrine of a material and corporeal change of the Elements belongs to a far later period. Q 242 THE GERMS OF FUTURE ERROR. (CH, X. the fear of losing the gifts conferred by this Sacrament led men to postpone being baptized till they were in extyemis, in order to enter Heaven pure from sin. Miracles were not of unfrequent occurrence, and are gravely related as natural events by ecclesiastical writers. The long-cherished belief that Nero would return as Antichrist was a sign of the credulity of those who first professed the Faith. By the end of the fourth century it was held that those who persecuted the Church were sure to die miserably—a belief which events tended to confirm.’ The presence of a certain amount of credulity was not unnatural. Persecuted enthusiasts cannot be ex- pected to exercise the calm judgment of cold-hearted philosophers, and their very zeal tends to stimulate credulity. In the first days of the Church the super- stitions of the Christians were comparatively few and harmless, and they are only worthy of notice because they contain the germs of later and more pernicious corruptions of the purity of the Gospel. r. Milman, Aéstory of Chréstianzty, vol. 111., p. 316. Constantine is of course the most famous example of the postponement of baptism. 2. Milman, zdzd., vol. I1., pp. 123—4, note. Kurtz, Church History, vol. I., p. 76. 3. This is the whole point of Lactantius’ work, De Mortzbus Perse- cutorum, in which the worst spirit of the Early Church appears, ey CHAPTER XI, |THE CHURCHES OF ROME, CARTHAGE, AND ALEXANDRIA. Tue object of the present chapter is to give in a concise form an account of the three important churches of Rome, Carthage and Alexandria, down to the time of the publication of the edict of Milan.. Each of these cities represents different effects of the Faith among people of various temperaments and dispositions, and we may trace many features of modern belief and doctrine to the influence of ideas fostered in these great centres of primitive Christianity. The outward grandeur of the Roman Church has remained. On the other hand Alexandria has ceased to be a power in Christendom ; and the great African Church, of which Carthage was the head, has entirely disappeared. Yet every time we repeat the so-called creed of Nicaea, we acknowledge a debt to the great theological school of Alexandria ; and no question in divinity can be approached without taking into account the theology of Augustine, the product and flower of the Christianity of Africa. It is chiefly to Rome that we owe the ideal of the catholicity of the Faith. The Roman bishops, at any rate after the first half of the second century, must have been men of wide and comprehensive views shewing strong sympathy with the most distant churches. Although it is true that the bishops of Rome _ occasionally displayed a desire to exert undue authority over foreign Christian communities, it must be admitted that the high position accorded to the Roman Church was due to something more than to self-assertion or to the Q2 244 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ROME. [cuH. x1 importance of the city. The virtues of the Roman Christians must be taken into account in every attempt to explain their wide-spread influence in the first centuries of our era. The Epistle to the Romans contains the most elaborate statement of doctrine put forth by St. Paul, and is a proof that the Apostle of the Gentiles was fully aware of the paramount importance of Rome as a Christian centre. It has been already remarked that St. Paul in his missionary journeys invariably selected (as the scenes of his most arduous labours) such cities as Corinth and Ephesus, through which a vast concourse of strangers was continually passing. One of the great objects of his life was to preach the Gospel in Rome, and he may possibly have had this in view when he appealed to Caesar. In his Epistle to the Philippians, written not long after his arrival, St. Paul describes the success of his preaching in Rome with evident satisfaction.! Though his labours must have been somewhat restricted by the circumstances of his imprisonment, he appears to have won converts among the praetorian guard and the slaves attached to Nero’s familia. Having once obtained a footing in the imperial palace, the new religion advanced so rapidly that by the close of the first century it began to number among its adherents. even the near relatives of the emperors. | It is characteristic of the Roman do fida ater ag church, that although it boasted of the Apostles Peter and Paul as its founders,? the name of the latter is now but rarely connected with St. Paul and the Roman Church. 1. For St. Paul’s desire to visit Rome, see Acts xix. 21, xxili. IT, Rom. i. 15. For his preaching at Rome, Phil. i. 12 foll. For the date of the Philippian Epistle, Lightfoot, PAz/ppians, p. 41. 2. Allusion to the work of the two Apostles is made by Clement of Rome, Z., c. 5, and implied in Ignatius ad Rom. iv. The Muratorian Fragment connects the ‘‘ passio Petri” with St. Paul’s journey to Spain. Hippolytus speaks of the contest between Simon Magus and the Ajosties. In the catacomb of St. Priscilla (also the burial place of Pudens and his. daughter) there is a fresco figure inscribed ‘‘ Paulus Pastor Apostolus”. Peter and Paul are constantly represented together in medallions, &c. (generally with Christ in the centre) in the catacombs. Eusebius (#. Z. vi1. 18) had probably seen some of these portraits. © cH.xL] ST. PETER’S VISIT TO ROME. 245 it. It will appear in the course of our history that the Roman Christians aimed at a policy of moderation, especially in matters of doctrine. In St. Paul we have an enthusiastic missionary, a pronounced theologian, the founder of a school; in St. Peter, a typical Christian ruler, the shepherd of God’s people,’ a man desirous of reconciling conflicting tendencies. It was related at a comparatively early Was St Feter date that St. Peter had been bishop of Rome for twenty-five years. The belief has been traced by some to the age of Hippolytus (A.D. 200),? and it certainly existed in the fourth century. The Apostle’s visit to the imperial city has been precariously connected with his disappearance from the foreground of St. Luke’s narrative. (Acts xii. 17.) St. Peter, released from the prison at Jerusalem, sends a message to “ James and the brethren ”’, and “ departing to another place” passes from his prominent position on the page of the historian to reappear on the single occasion of the council. (Acts xv.) But both his presence at Jerusalem on this occasion and his absence from the account of St. Paul’s own visit to Rome (Acts xxviii.) argue against this bold inference. Indeed it is scarcely possible that St. Peter could have visited Rome before A.D. 58. St. Paul, who made it his aim not to build on the foundations of other Apostles, addresses in that year the Christian community at Rome. Not only is there no mention of Peter in the crowded page of salutations (Rom. xvi.), but the attitude of the writer is plainly that of the recognised spiritual overseer, who, though he has yet to visit Rome in person, is the fountain head of those missionary channels which had brought the Gospel to the Imperial centre. Nor does St. Paul speak of St. Peter in the epistles written during his Roman captivity ; and from this it seems improbable 1. St. John xxi. 16. oluawve ra mpdBarid pov. It is noteworthy that St. Peter repeats his Master’s words in his advice to the elders, I. St. Pet. Vv. 2: woiudvare 7d év byuiv rolunov Tov Oeod~ 2. See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part I., vol. 1., p. 283. The Chronicon of Eusebius, according to Jerome, gives St. Peter a twenty- five years episcopate, but the Armenian version makes it only twenty years. Lightfoot, of. czt., p. 206. 246 FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. (CH. XI. that the latter Apostle had visited Rome before the year A.D. 63.’ Patristic testimony 1s however unanimous in saying that St. Peter did at some time visit Rome,” and it is very possible that he wrote his First Epistle from that city. This beautiful letter to the churches of Asia breathes the purest spirit of the Christian Faith. Written to console the persecuted believers in the East, it is full of the tenderest sympathy and the most practical counsels. Though, as in the case of the Epistle to the Romans, the relationship of writer and readers is not accounted for by history, the tone throughout this Epistle is that of a father addressing his children. The pathos of the letter is enhanced by the fact that the Apostle speaks to the afflicted faithful in the character of an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ (uwaptus TaV TOD XpioTod Tafynpatwv). In accordance with Hebraistic usage we may explain 7 év BaBvAov ouvexvexTyH as the congregation chosen by God from the midst of the centre of persecution, the corrupt and sinful Babylon of Rome in the days of Nero. The letter may thus be regarded as written by St. Peter from the Imperial city, probably not long before his own well-attested martyrdom there, viz. A.D. 68. Irenaeus says that St. Peter and ine FAN AS St. Paul founded the church of Rome and made Linus bishop, but it can neither be proved from this Father nor from any of his predecessors that the first-named Apostle was actually bishop of the city. Linus was followed by Anencletus ; after him came Clement, the third from the Apostles. Reference has already been made to the Neronian persecution. Much additional information about the 1. Lightfoot, of. czt., vol. 11., p. 490, ‘ The Roman Visit of St. Peter.’ 2. For patristic testimonies see Bp. Lightfoot, of, cz¢., who considers that év BaBuvdiwu (1. Pet. v. 13) refers unquestionably to Rome. The men- tion of Mark in this passage is a strong argument in favour of this view; for Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, all connect the writing of St. Mark’s Gospel with the preaching of St. Peter at Kome. Dean Alford, in his Prolegomena to I. St. Peter, chs. iii. and iv., thinks that the Assyrian Babylon is meant. See also Bp. Chase in his article on I, Peter, in Hastings’ Dict. B2b.; Bigg, Peter and Fude, p. 86; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. xxviii. f. : 3. Iren., Haeres., 111. iii. 3. Bishop Lightfoot unfortunately left an Appendix to his Apostolic Fathers, ‘St. Peter at Rome,’ uncompleted. mee a a ae cH.x1.]. THE FLAVIAN EMPERORS. 247 condition of the Roman church in the time of the second Imperial persecutor Domitian has been supplied by De Rossi’s important discoveries in the catacombs of Rome.} It had long been surmised that the fans tae itis Christians had gained a footing not only Christians, 19 the household but in the family of the Flavian emperors; De Rossi’s explora- tions have placed this conjecture on a substantial historical basis, the connexion of Flavia Domitilla with the Church being attested by several inscriptions. Vespasian, the first of the Flavian emperors, belonged not to the ancient Roman nobility, but to the Italian bourgeoisie, and both he and his family were con- spicuously devoid of aristocratic prejudices, They all seem to have been singularly attracted by the beliefs of the East, and to have surrounded themselves with Orientals, and even Jews. Herod Agrippa II. was on good terms with the Flavii, and his sister Berenice’s mature charms produced a great impression on Titus.? The Jewish historian Josephus also took the name of Flavius in honour of his imperial patrons, and enjoyed their favour at Rome. In the course of this work allusion has been made to the supposition that both Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domitilla became Christians. ‘‘ Any shadow of doubt’’ (to quote Bishop Lightfoot’s words) “ which might have rested on the Christianity of Clemens and Domitilla, after the perusal of the historical notices, has been altogether removed (at least as regards the wife) by the antiquarian discoveries of recent years.” One of the earliest burial places of the Roman Christians was the Coemeterium Domitillae. It has now been identified by De Rossi with the catacombs of the Tor Marancia on the Ardeatine Way; and the inscriptions discovered in it shew that it belonged to that Ilavia Domitilla® who was banished by Domitian on the charge 1. Our authority here is Bishop Lightfoot’s posthumous edition of the first part of his Apostolic Fathers. 2. Suetonius, 7z¢tus 7. . It is uncertain whether there were two ladies of this name who professed Christianity or only one. From the genealogical table 248 FLAVIA DOMITILLA. POMPONIA. {cH. x1. of ‘atheism’ so often made against Christians. One monument in this catacomb was erected (according to its legend) ex indulgentia Flaviae Domitillae, and another by Tatia, the nurse of the seven children of Vespasian and of his grand-daughter Flavia Domitilla.} The publicity of the buildings in connexion with this cemetery shews also that they were erected by some person of influence, and as De Rossi assigns to them as early a date as the first century, they may well have been erected just after Domitian’s death. But the Christians had made a convert Conversion of of high rank, even before the accession rh Sieh a of the Flavian dynasty, in Pomponia Graecina, who, by.a strange coincidence, was the wife of Aulus Plautius, Vespasian’s old com- mander in Britain. This noble lady’s friend, Julia the daughter of Drusus, was executed A.D. 43, Owing to the plots of the infamous Messalina. ‘The loss of one so intimate cast a gloom over the life of Pomponia, who sought consolation in religion. In A.p. 57 she was accused of practising foreign superstition, and tried by her husband, according to the ancient custom below it will be seen that there were several Flavia Domitillas.. This catacomb in the fourth century was known by the names of Petronilla, and Nereus and Achilleus. I. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part I., vol. 1., pp. 35—-39. The relationship of Clemens and Domitilla to the emperors Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian may be seen in the following table :— T. Fl. Sabinus me. Vespasia Pollia / T. Fl. Sabinus, T. Fl. Vespasianus (Imp.) Praefectus Urbis m. Flavia Domitilla (a) | T.Fl. Clemens m. Fl. Domitilla (c) (Titus) Imp. 79-81. Imp.81-96, : asister* T. Fl. Sabinus Julia Augusta Vespasian Domitian Flavia Domitilla (d)? * Euseb., H. A. ut 18, | | Flavia Domitilla (6) T. Fl.Vespasianus Domitian — be ti CH. XI.] CLEMENT’S EPISTLE. 249 of the Romans, in a family court;! she was pro- nounced innocent, and passed the rest of her life in profound melancholy. She survived her friend Julia by forty years, and consequently died about the year A.D. 83. Such is the account of Tacitus, and it has been conjectured that what seemed the grief of Pomponia and her mournful attire was in reality due to her profession of the Christian Faith? These surmises have been greatly strengthened by the dis- covery of the inscriptions in the so-called Crypt of Lucina, in memory of persons belonging to the Pomponian Gens. We even find the name Pomponius Graecinus, but only in a third-century inscription, and De Rossi has conjectured that Pomponia at her baptism took the name of Lucina, and that the cemetery of the Christians was called after her. It would appear then that Christianity ae ee since the death of Nero had made extra- Corinthians’ Ordinary progress at Rome. The patron- A.D. 96. age of the wealthy enabled the Church to obtain a tolerably firm footing in the city ; and the Christians, by availing themselves of the laws affecting funeral guilds, were enabled to give a seemly burial to their dead. Suddenly, almost without warning, towards the close of the reign of Domitian all was changed. Flavius Clemens was executed, and Flavia Domitilla banished. It was shortly after these troubles that Clement wrote anonymously in the name of the Roman church to the Corinthian Christians to allay their dissensions. He describes the persecutions, which the church of Rome had just been enduring, as being sudden and repeated (ai@vidious kal érrandArjdous ryevouevas). The tone of the letter reminds us of St. Peter; its language, of St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clement is evidently a Jew thoroughly acquainted with the Septuagint. He is mindful of the glories and privileges of Israel, and impressed no doubt by the terrible ruin which had so recently fallen upon his I. Tacitus, Anum. x11I. 32. ‘‘ Superstitionis externae rea.” 2. See Alford, Greek Zest., Prolegomenato 11. Tim. ‘ Excursus on ‘Pudens and Claudia.’ 250 IGNATIUS WRITES TO THE ROMANS. [cH, x1. nation.! He regards the Church as a continuation of ancient Israel, the Bishops and Deacons as taking a place analogous to that of the Priests and Levites of the Old Covenant. But he isno Judaizing controversialist. Peter and Paul are held in equal honour by him, both being held up as ensamples to posterity. Nor has he any sympathy with those Jews or Christians who regarded the Roman empire as the embodiment of evil. He agrees with the two great Apostles that the powers which be are ordained of God, and that submission to human authority is a duty.2 Clement desires concord and uniformity above all things. His ideal is order in the Church, as it is seen both in nature and in the Roman empire. The watchword of the whole epistle is the necessity of obedience. The document is a remarkable monu- ment of the practical wisdom of the church of Rome, of its profound policy, and of its spirit of govern- ment.® The Letter of About fourteen years after the despatch Ignatius tothe of the Epistle of Clement to Corinth, the Pieces church of Rome received a letter from Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, when he was on his way to suffer martyrdom in the Imperial city. The letter is interesting as shewing the position of the church of Rome in the eyes of the Christians of the East. Ignatius in his salutation exhausts every epithet of honour in describing the Roman church. It is “beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love through Jesus Christ our God; even she that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking i in the law of Christ and 1. Lightfoot, 4post. Fathers, Part I., vol. 1., p. 351: “ «Jealousy and strife overthrew great cities and rooted out great nations.’ In this last sentence some have seen special reference to the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 70. Bearing in mind the language in which Josephus on the one hand and Hegesippus on the other describe the causes of the Jewish war, we cannot consider this allusion altogether fanciful.” 2. Rom. xiii.1. 1. St. Peter ii. 13, Lightfoot, of. cz¢., p. 384. 3. Renan, Zes Evangiles, ch. xv. Eusebius (Z@. £&. Il. 16) speaks in highest praise of Clement’s letter, calling it weydAn re kal Oavuacia. CH. x1} POLYCARP. PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 251 bearing the Father’s name.”! The Martyr evidently regards the Roman church as a very powerful and influential body, able, if it makes an effort, to purchase or procure his pardon from the authorities, and he entreats the Christians at Rome not to rob him of the prize of martyrdom. We have noticed how recent discoveries confirm the opinion that the patronage of persons of high station was now accorded to the Church in Rome. Ignatius doubtless was not over-estimating the influence of the Christian community. Polycarp visited Rome shortly before 'Polyearpin his martyrdom, during the pontificate ome. : A.D. 164. of Anicetus. He came to settle a dispute between the Roman and Asiatic churches as to whether the festival of Easter should be held invariably on a Sunday, or whether the Christian Passover, like the Jewish, should be always celebrated on the fourteenth day irrespective of the day of the week. The latter custom prevailed in Asia Minor, on (it was alleged) the authority of St.John. Anicetus allowed the venerable disciple of the Apostle to preside at the Eucharist—a most remarkable honour, as the bishop of each church invariably celebrated the sacred mysteries himself.? Victor and the The conciliatory action of Anicetus al- Paschal layed the first symptoms of this controversy. At ton ons More characteristic of the later spirit of ry ’ the church of Rome is its attempt to in- timidate the other churches in relation to the same matter of discipline. Not many years later, the Roman bishop, Victor (A.D. 190—202), deemed it intolerable that the churches of Asia should thus differ from the practice of Rome in observing Easter. Victor actually threatened to excommunicate the Asiatics for refusing to abandon a custom which they alleged had been derived from St. John himself. But this high-handed conduct shocked the more generous Christian feeling of theage. Irenaeus, 1. Ignatius, Ad Rom., c. i., Bp. Lightfoot’s trans. Hefele’s text ignores the comma after éo7w, in which case the sentence would run ‘*‘ Who willed all things that are in accordance with the love of Jesus Christ.” 2. -Euseb., H. Z. v. 24; for so the words rapexwpnoev 6 ’Avixnros Ti evxapictiay Tr UWodvKdpay have been interpreted. 252 : THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. (CH. XI. bishop of Lyons in Gaul, an Asiatic by birth and education, wrote to point out the unreasonableness of Victor’s conduct, and the Roman bishop had the wisdom to withdraw his threat of excommunication.’ Allusion has already been made to the presence of numerous Gnostic teachers at Rome. We may see in this another illustration of the early importance of the Roman church. It seems as though every new teacher desired to obtain a hearing in the Imperial city. The legend of St. Peter’s contest with Simon Magus in Rome is a typical embodiment of the struggle between orthodoxy and Gnosticism. The doctrines of Marcion and of the Valentinians had much influence among the inhabitants of Rome, and we are told that a lady Gnostic, Marcellina by name, attracted a number of pupils by her lectures on the system of Carpocrates. No student of Church history can The Stepherd ignore the fact that the religious pro- A.D.130% ductions which have attained widest popularity have a footing independent of learning, orthodoxy, and canons of literary taste. How well even in the early ages the Roman church under- stood the need of providing a popular devotional literature, we may judge by the fact that the first Christian romance was produced by Hermas the brother © of Pope Pius. The work, the celebrated Shepherd, consists of a series of Visions represented as having been seen by the author. Hermas is introduced as a slave sold in youth to a lady named Rhoda, but afterwards appears as a prosperous tradesman, married to a Gentile wife, whose bitter tongue was the cause of great trouble to him, as was also his family of extravagant sons. In his youth Hermas had admired Rhoda, but had not seen her for many years. One day he saw her bathing in the Tiber,? and reflected how happy he would have been had he been blessed with such a wife. Neverthe- Gnosticism at Rome. 1. It is not certain that Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatics. Jerome speaks of his desire to have them condemned. Eusebius (Z. Z. v. 23) is not definite. Socrates (H. Z. v. 22) says that an excommunication was pronounced. 2. This incident is less startling when one has read Cyprian De Habitu Virginum, ¢. 19. CH. X1.] MONTANISM CONDEMNED, 253 less, Hermas is careful to add that he never betrayed his thoughts to her either by word or action. In the first vision seen by Hermas, the girl, who had evidently died, appeared to him and rebuked him because his love had not been altogether devoid of concupiscence. Soon, how- ever, an aged matron took her place, and told Hermas that all was not well with him because he had allowed his family to lead godless and irregular lives. This venerable lady, who represents the Church, revealed many things to Hermas, and was followed by an angel in the character of the Shepherd or Angel of Repentance, who henceforth acts as guide. Such is the epitome of the Shepherd of Hermas. ‘The fantastic Visions and Simili- tudes of which the book is composed enjoyed a wide popularity. Irenaeus quotes the book as Scripture, and Origen is of opinion that it is divinely inspired; and it is included along with Barnabas in the New Testament of the celebrated Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century. The late Dean Stanley has not exagger- ated its influence when he speaks of it as the “ popular book of devotion, the Pilgrim’s Progress of the second century, which was spread far and wide from Italy even to Greece, Egypt, and Abyssinia.”? The Shepherd of Hermas is thought to Condemnation of have been the production of a member of Montenism bY the more austere party in the Roman (A.D. 190—202.) church. Even at this early date we are able to see that two views of church govern- ment had been adopted in Rome. There was a Catholic party, desirous of extending the limits of the Church and of deterring nobody from membership who would acknowledge official authority. We find the upholders of this view inclined to toleration in matters of opinion, and to lenity in respect of discipline. On the other hand, a Puritan party aimed at a smaller but more perfect church of unimpeachable orthodoxy, exercising unrelenting severity towards offenders. The contest was not unlike that between the Jesuits and the Jansenists in 1. Fora good description of the contents of the Shepherd of Hermas, see Bunsen, Azppolytus and his Age, vol. 1., pp. 182—214. The work is divided into Visions, Commandments, and Similitudes, See also Dobschutz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, ch. xviii. 254 MONARCHIANISM, | [CH XI. the seventeenth century. On the one side there was a certain breadth of view and liberality of mind joined with some worldliness and a tendency toa laxer morality. On the other, deep spiritual insight and strong religious con- victions existed side by side with those shortcomings which make all forms of Puritanism sectarian and unamiable. The Montanists represented the latter school of thought. In the West they appear as stern enthusiasts, heroes in the days of persecution, bigots in time of peace. At first their love of martyrdom, their sensitive purity, and their austerity of life, made them very popular. Gradually it became evident to the heads of the Roman church that their ill-regulated zeal might prove a source of disorder in the Christian body, and the representations of the Asiatic Praxeas, who had seen the Montanists in the country of their origin, sufficed to induce Victor to pronounce them excommunicate. ‘The true scene of their mfluence in the West was, however, not Rome, but Africa. The fact that Victor listened to Praxeas, whose opinions were unorthodox, and that the orthodox Montanists were censured, was characteristic of the Roman policy. Freedom in matters of opinion was granted by the early popes, at the price of uniformity in practice. We have already shewn the weakness of the Roman bishops in their action towards those who held Monarchian opinions; none of them indeed seemed capable of grasping the true theological significance of the doctrinal tendencies of the age. Nevertheless this unscientific frame of mind had its merits. The very vacillations of Zephyrinus and Callistus in dealing with heresy reveal a definite line of policy. The Roman church desired breadth and comprehensiveness, and preferred conciliation to rigid definitions of dogma. It is not without significance that, down to the very eve of the outbreak of the Reformation, the church of Rome could claim the merit of having exercised great toleration in matters of religious speculation." The Eastern Church The Monarchians. 1. Even Gregory VII., the great upholder of the Papal supremacy, shewed no rancour against Berengarius, who denied the popular doctrine of transubstantiation. See Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. Iv., p. 118. " , CH. XI.] CAREER OF CALLISTUS. 255 still boasts of her orthodoxy, the Western of her catholicity. The disputes between the Catholic and Puritan parties in Rome culminated ina serious quarrel between Callistus, the suc- cessor of Zephyrinus, and Hippolytus, the greatest scholar of hischurch andage. Weare in possession of the views of the latter given in his Refutation of All the Heresies. According to Hippolytus, Callistus was a most dis- reputable prelate. In early life he had been the slave of Carpophorus, a pious and wealthy ornament of the church of Rome. He had induced many of the poorer members of the community to trust their money in a commercial enterprise which Carpophorus had placed in his hands. Like other business transactions conducted by men of piety with the money of the widow and orphan, Callistus’ bank failed. His patron, anxious to clear himself from all complicity, pursued Callistus as he was escaping from those whom he had defrauded. Callistus was just setting sail, when he saw Carpophorus gesticulating to the sailors, calling on them to deliver up the fugitive. He immediately jumped into the sea in hopes of being drowned, but was rescued and delivered to his master. As a punishment he was condemned to work in the pistvina. After a time Carpophorus, moved by the grief of the defrauded investors, liberated Callistus, who professed himself able to recover some of the cash. Instead of doing this, he tried to obtain the honour of martyrdom by disturbing a synagogue service. He was now accused before Fuscianus the praefect of the city ; and Carpophorus, more zealous for the honour of the church than mindful of the truth, declared that Callistus was not a Christian. The future pope was sentenced to work in the mines in Sardinia, and was thus occupied when the Christian confessors there were set free at the intercession of Marcia, the concubine of Commodus. Callistus managed to be included in the amnesty, and returned to Rome. We next find him in high favour with Zephyrinus, who gave him charge of the cemetery, a highly honourable position. Zephyrinus died in A.D. 217; and his place in the late pontiff’s good Hippolytus and Callistus. 256 DID HIPPOLYTUS EXAGGERATE? _ [cu. x1. graces secured the election of Callistus to the Roman chair. Hippolytus’ indictment now details the ecclesi- astical offences of this Pope of damaging antecedents. Callistus is accused of favouring heresy, of decreeing that if a bishop sinned even unto death he should not be deposed, of allowing heretics to enter the Church without doing penance, of tolerating bishops and priests who had been guilty of second and third marriages, of having permitted free-born women to marry slaves, and finally of crowning his offences by allowing all sinners the chance of re-admission to the Church after doing penance. ‘This curious history, illustrative of many phases of the middle-class life of Rome in the third century, must be regarded as a bitterly partisan account of the rise of a successful and perhaps not very scrupulous man. It is evident that Callistus’ failings are exaggerated. It is indeed scarcely credible that so bad a man could have risen to the position of bishop of Rome at a time when the Church had departed but little from her primitive standard of morality. Against Hippolytus’ charges must be set the common experience, that those who would fain narrow the sphere of salvation see the faults of their opponents through powerful magni- fying glasses. The charity that thinketh no evil is seldom a companion of Puritanism. Callistus, when a slave, may have succumbed to temptation as alleged. But is it certain that the reproach of dishonesty does not more justly lie against his master, the good Carpophorus? In Rome, as elsewhere, masters who practised virtue themselves may not have been above allowing servants to make profit for them in questionable business transac- tions. At all events, Callistus seems to have led a life of irreproachable morality as a bishop! Even Hippolytus can only accuse him of ecclesiastical offences, generally in the direction of what that austere Father considers to be a mistaken lenity. We need hardly add that the indulgence accorded to penitents by Callistus would not be reprobated by any modern church. ‘The severer \ 1. Tradition says Callistus was killed in a tumult and his body flung into a well in the Trastevere where he lived. He does not lie in his own catacomb, but in one on the other side of the Tiber. CH, XI.] POSITION OF HIPPOLYTUS, 257 party had censured Zephyrinus for allowing persons guilty of carnal sins after baptism to have one more chance of repentance. Callistus seems to have extended this act of mercy to those who had sacrificed in time of persecution. But not even the bishop of Rome could have done this by himself. The episcopal power was strictly constitutional in character, and Callistus’ indulgence doubtless had the assent of the college of Roman presbyters. We may notice that during the Decian persecution the Roman presbyters, writing to Cyprian, speak of the antiqua severitas practised by their church, and pride themselves on their strictness of discipline. They say nothing of any break in the continuity of their policy in regard to offenders, and therefore so far ignored the charges brought by Hippolytus against Callistus. A bishop owing so little to antecedent prestige may well be supposed not to have acted without influential supporters in reforms so open to aspersion. We take it therefore that Hippolytus represented a discontented minority who wished to see no relaxation in that severe policy by which great offenders (subsequent penitence notwithstanding) ‘were condemned to perpetual exclusion from the Church. In thus traversing a testimony, biassed as we believe by a narrow puritanical prejudice, we do not ignore the claims of Hippolytus to rank even with the greatest Roman Christians of the first three centuries. His Refutation of All the Heresies remains a noble product of his erudition, even though his zeal against Callistus may be thought to cast a blot on its reputation. One of the earliest Christian statues is a life-size figure of a bishop seated, said by some to be Hippolytus, but possibly intended to represent St. Peter.* On the out- 1. Yet this concession had the authority of the ‘Shepherd’: ‘* post vocationem illam magnam...unam poenttentiam hadbet.” (Mand. iv. 3.) The same limitation seems to have obtained at Alexandria: Clement incorpo- rates this Mandate in Strom. ii. 13, adding however the classical Scriptural passage, Heb. x. 26, 27. 2. The statue must have been erected either during the lifetime of Hippolytus or soon after his death, as the Paschal table which begins in A.D. 222 became manifestly erroneous in A.D. 241 when it was superseded. MacCarthy’s Annals of Ulster, vol. 1V., 1901, pp. xxxi—xl, clxii—cl xvii. R 258 WHO WAS HIPPOLYTUS? (cH. x1. break of Maximin’s persecution Hippolytus was banished to Sardinia in company with Pontianus, the successor to the chair and policy of Callistus The two rivals died in exile, to all appearance reconciled in the common trial of their faith. Their bodies were brought back to Rome by Pope Fabian.? The impartial reverence of the Church included both Hippolytus and Callistus in the roll of her saints. A strange fate, however, overtook the memory of the former. He was identified with several legendary martyrs of the same name. Some fancied that he had suffered the fate of his more ancient name-sake, and had been torn asunder by wild horses.* His very office in the Church was forgotten. One form of the erratic legend moves this Western theologian to a see in Arabia.* Scientific archaeology has as yet failed to determine precisely the ecclesiastical status of Hippolytus. Bunsen con- siders him to have been a presbyter of Rome and at the same time bishop of Portus. Déllinger with more probability decides that he was a forerunner of the long line of antipopes, and that he allowed himself to be consecrated bishop of Rome in opposition to Callistus. Bp. Lightfoot in his posthumous work suggests that he held office as bishop of Portus with a general superintendence over such foreign Christians as came by sea to Rome. | poritiate The administration of Callistus may Callistus’s be said to anticipate the future trend of Pontificate: — the Church’s conceptions on three im- (2) Conception of portant topics. (1) We have seen that ’ the ideal of a pure and exclusive com- munity championed by Tertullian and Hippolytus begins to succumb before the now familiar conception of a mixed Church, retaining unworthy members within the fold and leaving the sentence of permanent exclusion to the final judgement of God. ‘The stricter 1. Dollinger, Aippolytus und Kallistus, p, 66. 2. Jbid., pp. 223—235. 3. So Prudentius, Peristephanon de Passione S. Hippolyti. 4. Euseb., 2. £. vi. 20, ‘Esloxomos 5 obros hv (Beryllus) ray xara Béorpav "ApdBwy' doatrws 8 xat Immdduros Erépas wou kal aires mw poegTws éxkrAnolas. CH. X1.] ONCE A PRIEST ALWAYS A PRIEST, 259 view may seem to triumph in the conflict which we shall presently find Cyprian, the inheritor of Tertullian’s theology, waging with the Novatian faction. But it is the ideal of Callistus that is destined to permanent ascendency. The early rule of refusing a second re- admission to lapsed penitents survived indeed in canons of the Church, but Socrates tells us how it is traversed by the great Chrysostom himself. In 589 the council of Toledo vainly complains that it has become a dead letter in the West. Was it a personal experience of the blessed effects of administrative leniency in leading a sinner to repentance that made this Pope of question- able moral antecedents thus vindicate the wisdom of St. James’s maxim, ‘‘Mercy glorieth against judgement’’? It is significant, after reading Hippolytus’ aspersions on the early career of Callistus, to find that the latter is the first Christian writer who insists on the necessity of evil as well as good elements in the Church of Christ, and who cites for this purpose the teachings of our Lord’s parable of the tares growing in the field beside the wheat, and the more fanciful analogy of the Ark with its beasts both clean and unclean. (2) Such a conception is naturally connected with a growing sense of the sanctity of the Church’s’ objective agencies, the Kingdom of Christ being viewed in its external relations and mechanical efficiency, rather than as an ideal claiming actually to display the purity of heaven upon earth.’ It is further worth noticing that it is Callistus who first enunciates that theory of the indelibility of Holy Orders which likewise was to become paramount. His opinions on this subject form part of Hippolytus’ indictment. The attitude of Callistus may indeed well be contrasted with that of an earlier Roman bishop. At the close of the first century Clement is moved to reprove the Corinthian community for an actual deposition of presbyters. In a lengthy epistle he inveighs against the spirit of jealousy and uncharitableness displayed, but nowhere does he use the argument of unassailable sacrosanctity (2) Indelibility of Holy Orders; 1. Cf. Harnack, Ast. of Dogma, vol. 11., ch. ii. R2 260 PRIMACY OF PETER. (CH. XI of office. The gist of the offence is in part centred not in any indelibility of function, but in the fact that the Corinthians had deposed from a consecrated vocation men who had led a blameless life. Here again Callistus may be contrasted with Cyprian, for Cyprian, despite his high conceptions of officialism, distinctly states that the episcopal office is forfeited if a bishop does not maintain the moral standard of the Gospel, and appears to have no notion of this theory of indelibility.1 And again, the view of Callistus is evidently in advance of his time. Even as late as 633 a cleric wrongfully deprived is not only to be reinstated but reordained, the rule given by the council of Toledo being “non potest esse quod fuevat nist grvadus amissos vecipiat coram altario.’’? G) All oe ie ‘ ! are familiar with the medi- er ttane aon hath interpretation of Matth. xvi. 18 as the charter of the Papacy, and it is this text which blazoned in gigantic mosaics meets the eye of the traveller who gazes up into the mighty cupola of St. Peter’s church at Rome. It is Callistus who first cites this text as a promise not only to Peter but to those who are Peter’s successors in the episcopal chair of Rome. Tertullian in the subsequent controversy disallows this interpretation, which it need scarcely be said is ignored or contradicted by the great Patristic commentators of the two succeeding centuries. Again we are reminded of the career of Cyprian, for forty years later the Roman Stephen again adduces this text in his controversy with his brother of Carthage.* Cyprian weakly admits its relevancy so far as the pre-eminence of the Roman See is concerned, taking exception however to its application to an individual bishop of Rome. But again Callistus is practically far in advance of his times, interesting though the misappropriation of the text is as a herald of future history. We can scarcely read Tertullian’s sarcastic terms ‘episcopus episcoporum’ and ‘ pontifex maximus’* Cyprian, Epp. 65, 67, 68. cf. Harnack, ut supra. Dict. Christian Antiq., art. ‘Orders’. cf. Harnack, Hzst. of Dogma, vol. 11., p. 148, De Pudicitia, 1. 13. i fyye CH. X1.] ROMAN CHURCH PERSECUTED. 261 in his controversy with Callistus, without reflecting, not only that these appellations were destined to be actually appropriated by the Popes although the great Gregory at the close of the sixth century still denounces the title “cumenical Bishop” as “proud and foolish” and “fan imitation of the devil”). Any weakness or irresolution shewn Ls fore ga by the bishops of Rome in the matter Valerian, Of the Monarchian dispute was amply atoned for by their conduct during the great persecution begun by Decius and continued down to the accession of Gallienus. Five successive Popes were martyred between a.p. 250 and 258. ‘The great importance of the Roman church is attested by the Emperor Decius, wha, after the martyrdom of Fabian, is reported by Cyprian to have said that he would rather see a rival for the Empire than a new bishop of Rome.? The church now remained for sixteen months without a bishop, and it was not till Decius was engaged in the Gothic war that a man was found to fill the vacancy. Cornelius was consecrated Fabian’s successor in June A.D. 251, when a temporary peace was brought to the Church by the defeat and death of Decius. But this immunity from external annoyance was marred by internal discord. The question of the treatment of those who had ‘lapsed’ during the persecution provoked such bitterness as to give rise to a serious schism. The stricter party, at the tine:..4; Nigel b of Cambatera turbulent person whos ovatus, a presbyter in his own church will be hereafter. noticed, Teagaus themselves in a schismatic community and took 7 1e name of Cathavi or Puritans. They chose as their bishop Novatian, a man whose gloomy Novatian Schism. 44 saturnine temper reminds us of the A.D. 26) Puritan leaders of a an cee peated red a severe spiritual conflict betore his con- See ering which ie seemed like one hoe by a daemon. ‘The prayer of an exorcist ie sre tranquillity, but serious bodily illness resulted trom the 1. These observations on Callistus are supplied by the Rev. . C. Jennings. * a. Vata, Ep. 51 (to Antonianus). 262 NOVATIAN. PAPAL MARTYRS. [cH. x terrible mental anxiety through which he had passed. In this hour of seemingly mortal sickness he was baptized. On his recovery he applied himself to the work of a teacher, and his power of imparting know- ledge won the favour of Bishop Fabian. Contrary to the practice of the Church, which was opposed to the ordination of clinici (or persons baptized on what was wrongly supposed to be their death-bed), Fabian admitted Novatian to the rank of presbyter. In justice to Novatian we must add that he had no desire for pro- motion in the Church. His one wish apparently was to retire into austere seclusion! The busy and intriguing Novatus found however in Novatian the man for his purpose. Henceforth he headed the party which denied all hope of pardon to such baptized Christians as had offered sacrifice, or even obtained certificates of exemption (libelli) from the heathen magistrates. This schism at Rome long distracted the Church, and Novatianism flourished in Asia till as late as the fifth century. During the Arian controversy the followers of Novatian were rigidly orthodox, and the value of the testimony of this ancient sect was highly appreciated by the Catholics. Very soon after the schism of the Cathart persecution was renewed, and Cornelius and many of his flock retired to Centumcellae in Etruria. The bishop died in 252, whether as a martyr or not is uncertain. His successors, Lucius, Stephen and Xystus, or Sixtue IL, were all put to death. The influen-s~* te oman bishop -~ waS now beginning to be felt : 5 Bp! Seas © in ecclesiast of the Empire. We shall see how Stephen interfered with the African Christians in the question of the validity of heretical baptism, as we saw in an earlier chapter how Dionysius, bishop of Rome (A.D 259—269), criticised the language of his name-sake of Alexandria.2?,— During the latter years of the third century we hear but little of the see of Rome, but in the days of persecution Marcellinus (a.p. 296—304) is said to have apostatised and confessed his guilt at a synod of three hundred bishops held at Sinuessa.$ | I. Eusebius, HZ. vi. 43. 2. See Chapter VIII., page 166, 3. Hefele, st. of the Councils, vol. 1, p. 127, Eng. Transl. There CH, XI.] FAMOUS AFRICAN CHRISTIANS. 264 BOE , The Church of proconsular Africa and History of the Numidia does not boast of an Apostolic founder. There is no record of the planting of Christianity in Africa, and we know nothing even of the church of Carthage till the appearance of Tertullian at the close of the second century. ‘This is ‘the more strange because from this time onward Roman Africa became a most flourishing centre of early Chris- tianity. The vigour of the faith displayed by the African Church is unexampled even in primitive days. No province produced more brilliant examples of constancy in martyrdom. No church can boast more illustrious names than those of the three great Africans, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine. Nowhere, alas, has a more fatal example of the ills wrought by sectarian bitterness been manifested than here. Deeply impressive indeed is the history of these African Christians, great alike in their virtues and in their faults. The martyrdom of Perpetua and her companions (A.D. 203) gives a wonderful picture of the intensity of Christian convictions in this province. The Acts recording their testimony to the Faith must be read in full in order to appreciate how heroism was blended with Christian gentleness in their conduct and confession.1 It is said that these martyrs belonged to the sect of the Montanists; the enthusiastic doctrines of this party found certainly their most con- genial liome among the fervent Christians of Africa. Prertuiuan, “the “wos 6 Tertullian, ~~ Montanism, combines in himsel ponent. of ¢ 160-890; characteristics both of his. church and nation. He was a man of education, and had practised as an advocate before he became a Christian. He possessed very great talents, considerable power and variety of expression, and a wonderful readiness of seeing the fallacy of an argument brought forward by his ave doubts as to the story of Marcellinus’s apostasy. It is probable, ee vittele says, that it is a falsehood spread by the Donatists about the year 400. “nn 1. Rendel Harris, Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, and also Cambridge “Si vets and Studies, 1. i. Mason, Hestortc Martyrs of the Primitive * Church, ch. V. opponents! The sincerity of Tertullian’s convictions is as unquestionable as his zeal. He is a consistently high-hearted champion of the Christian Faith. But all is marred by his narrowness. His character was cast in a. thoroughly Puritan mould. ‘Tertullian is incapable of seeing any good outside his own circle, Unlike the Fathers of Alexandria, he can recognise no good in Philosophy; unlike the bishops of Rome, he acknow- ledges no virtue in moderation. The Bible appears to him unintelligible save to those who belong to the Church ;? heretics have no right to be heard; their erroneous opinions, to use his own expression, place them out of court. A Christian who had lapsed was regarded by Tertullian in the same light as a deserter appears in the eye of a brave soldier who is a stranger to fear: he deserves no consideration, ‘The mercy which the Church accorded to sinners (albeit severely limited) was to this zealot an offence. Tertullian was in fact unable to breathe the wide atmosphere of the Catholic Church. The narrow circle of the Montanistic community, which he probably joined at the time of the persecution of Septimius Severus, suited him far better.® 1. See his ingenious but cogent arguments against purchasing tolera- tion, in his treatise De Fuga in Persecutione, quoted by Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. I., p. 168. The sixth chapter of this treatise, in which Tertullian combats the view that our Lord sanctions flight in persecution by His command to His Apostles in St. Matth. x. 22. ** When they persecute you in this city, flee unto the next”? (P- ¥+Js 1S a good specimen of Tertullian’s exegesis. _~=» -oee Chapter VII., page 147. 3. Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, vol I., p. 254. Tertullian’s writings shew the change of his theoloc; tas 4 following list :— § s theological opinions, Bunsen gives “ee PRE-MONTANIST Works :— Ad Martyres, De Spectaculis, De Idololatria Abologeti + wards recast and published in the two books 4d Wate ‘De yee Animae, Praescriptio adv. Haereticos. ‘If we add to this book” says Bunsen ‘*the admirable ethical treatises De Oratione, De Patientia, De Baptismo, De Poenttentia, Ad Uxorem, De Cultu Feminarum, we may sa that this was his best period of literary power, viz. just before A.D. 202.” MONTANIST Booxs :— De Pallio (the mention of three em aiteal seta perors, Septimius Severus, Get and Caracalla, fixes the date at A.D. 207 or Pa no Mer une (A.D. 208), De Corona Militz » De Fuga in Persecutione, Contra Genies “Se aia. = 2 ss ; ee CH. XI.] CYPRIAN. 265 But his genius was too great, and his aid too powerful to be ignored by the Church. Many of the treatises he wrote when a Montanist were too valuable contributions to the defence of the primitive Faith to be regarded as sectarian productions. The great bishop St. Cyprian prized his writings above all other theological works, and when he asked his secretary to hand him a volume of Tertullian he is reported to have said, ‘‘ Give me the master.” Lane Nor is the fanatical Montanist wholly Cyprian, bishop unlike the more genial bishop of Carthage. of Carthage ; ; ; } A.D. 248—258; Cyprian was superior to his teacher in breadth of sympathy, but he had not studied Tertullian for nothing. He agreed with his master in thinking that there was no virtue outside the Church. ‘Tertullian in his controversies with Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, on the propriety of admitting persons guilty of carnal sin after baptism to reconciliation, and Cyprian in his efforts to sustain the episcopal power, were alike actuated by this belief. The difference between them lies in the fact that Tertullian wished to narrow the Church by his rigour, whilst Cyprian desired to win men to enter its pale.} The two agree in their admiration of a severe discipline towards sinners, but Tertullian advocates an impossible strictness with all the warmth of a theorist, whilst Cyprian in punishing offenders exercises the wise dis- cretion of a practical man. A brief résumé of his life will suffice to shew that Cyprian claims a position among the greatest Christian bishops. Thascius Caecilianus Cyprianus was a man of birth, wealth, and station. By profession he was a rhetorician, and Scorpiace, Adv. Praxeam, De Exhortatione Castitatis, De Monogamia, De Pudicitia, De Jejunits, De Virginibus velandis, Adv. Hermogenem, De Anima, De Carne Christi, De Resurrectione Carnis, Adversus Valentinz- anos, Adversus Judaeos. : 1. As in the case of Cyprian’s readiness to re-admit those of the faction of Novatianus who discovered that it was leading to a schism. Archbishop Benson (Cyfrzan, p. 163) remarks: “‘ The temperate firmness and the serene joy of Cyprian’s remonstrance, and congratulation to the confessors on their secession and return, place the 46th and 54th letters among the most delicate specimens of the collection, and are alone enough to give Cyprian a foremost rank among wise and loving saints. 366 OPPOSITION TO CYPRIAN. (CH. x1. possibly, like his ‘master’ Tertullian, an advocate. He was owner of some of the finest pleasure-grounds in Carthage, which he sold after his conversion for the benefit of the poor. His friends however evinced their esteem for him by repurchasing the property and restoring it to its former owner. Like Ambrose and other successful bishops, Cyprian had passed his early life in civil occupation. He was converted late in life and raised to the see of Carthage within two years of his baptism. He tells us that he was elected by the plebs of the church, who insisted on his being their bishop, and throughout his troublous episcopate he retained their support... Among his clergy, however, five presbyters headed by Novatus regarded with implacable resent- ment this elevation of a novice. The story of Cyprian’s. episcopate Farty opposed to appeals to the sympathies of all Christian yprian ae at Carthage; ministers who have suffered from the opposition of a factious minority. His- torians have delighted in discovering in Novatus an opponent of the hierarchical assumptions of the bishops and an asssertor of the ancient rights of the presbyterate. It seems more in accordance with human nature to assuine that disappointed ambition lay at the bottom of his resolve to oust Cyprian from the position of bishop of Carthage. Novatus was one of the five presbyters whom Cyprian’s election had offended. This “firebrand’’® (as Cyprian not unreasonably designates him) found in an incident of the Decian persecution an vpportunity of venting his spite on the new bishop. Cyprian had early withdrawn from Carthage, in order to govern the church from a safe retreat during this terrible crisis. The action evinces that higher courage which pursues the path of duty regardless of the im- putation of cowardice. ‘The first fury of the persecution abated, in the same spirit Cyprian returned to curb I. Cyprian speaks very strongly on the responsibility laid on the people of choosing a fit and proper person as bishop. (Z/. 67. 2.) He says that a bishop is appointed by divine sanction, the suffrages of the people, and the consent of his fellow bishops. (Zp. 59. 6.) 2. ‘Fax et ignis ad conflanda seditionis incendia.” And again, ** Novatus qui apud nos discordiae incendium seminavit.” (2. 52. 2.) Archbp. Benson, Cyprian, p. 111. { = = CH. XI. J NOVATUS AND FELICISSIMUS. 267 an abuse characteristic of the age and place. A custom obtained that the Church’s pardon should be accorded to recusants in deference to petitions from those stronger brethren who had attested their faith by suffering. The ‘lapsed’, who were very numerous after the persecution of Decius, were found by Cyprian to be clamouring for admission to the Church on the score of the merits of the martyrs and confessors.! Discipline demanded that those in authority in the Church should deal wisely and firmly with all who had shewn weakness in the hour of trial. To resist the interference of the confessors was however no easy matter, for the exaggerated reverence of the Carthaginian Christians gave to their wishes the force of commands. Novatus saw his opportunity. He put himself on the side of the confessors, and with the aid of a certain Felicissimus, an influential member of the diaconate, formed a strong party against Cyprian.? The bishop acted with great discretion. On the one hand he saved himself from the reproach of disregarding the confessors’ claims; on the other, he avoided the danger of relaxing discipline. He accepted the libelli pacis granted by the confessors, but insisted that the bishop before he admitted any lapsed person to communion should be satisfied as to the genuineness of his penitence. A synod was held at Carthage, and the policy of Cyprian met with the approval of the African Church. The course of events shewed the factious and unprincipled conduct of Novatus and his unscrupulous supporter Felicissimus, who assisted him as deacon in the ad- ministration of the district in Carthage known as ‘the Mount’, possibly containing the Byrsa or Capitol of ‘the city. Novatus visited Rome after the death of Fabian, A.D. 250, schism still attending his track; but there he found that the confessors were not on the side of leniency, and that the question of the lapsed was not 'z, ©©Communicet ille cum suis” (Z/. 15. 4) was often the loose wording of the /zbe//i pacts issued by the confessors. The abuse had already vexed the righteous Tertullian, cf. De Pudicttza, c. 22. whee Se 2. Neander (Church History, vol. 1., p. 324) says that Felicissimus probably used the control over the church funds, which he enjoyed as deacon, as a means of furthering the interests of his party. 268 CYPRIAN’S OPINIONS, [CH. XL agitating the Church in the same manner as in Africa. Heading the party of extreme severity, he thereupon procured, as we have seen, the election of the first anti-pope, the gloomy and fanatical Novatian. As Cyprian uses language about the episcopal dignity which matches that of the Ignatian Epistles, his part in this episode has been depicted as that of a narrow-minded prelate bent on asserting his official claims.1 The circumstances lead us to regard this as an unjust misrepresentation. We must bear in mind that, when Cyprian was elected bishop, he was chosen by the Cyprian’s view of Episcopacy ; people to lead them in a most terrible crisis. The Empire under Decius and his successors was putting forth all its strength to crush the Church. The per- secution was literally a war of extermination. Cyprian felt it his duty to God, and to those who had chosen him, to uphold his authority. Those who blame him ignore the fact that Novatus and his partisans were not the chosen leaders of the church. ‘Their schism was in reality a revolt against the choice of the laity. No instance of Cyprian morosely excluding others from his counsels is alleged. It would seem, indeed, that he took the advice of his people whenever possible, and shewed a readiness to be guided by the decisions of synods. Traditions of his personality represent no arrogant ecclesiastic, but a large-hearted and a singularly loveable man. His treatment of those Novatians who made their peace with the Church shews how generously he could forget the annoyances of former opposition. Nevertheless Cyprian, as has been shewn, shared some of the narrow views of Tertullian. It had long been the custom of the Roman church to allow that all Cyprian and Re-baptism; 1. See Archbp. Benson’s summary of the views of O. Ritschl and A. Harnack on the Eighth Epistle, sent nominally by the Roman clergy— a very illiterate production, which seeks to lower Cyprian in the eyes of his clergy by innuendos as to his motive for absenting himself from Carthage. Cyprian, p. 148. 2. During Cyprian’s episcopate the following synods were held at Carthage: (1) the council which discussed the validity of Cornelius’s election as bishop of Rome and the case of Felicissimus, April, A.D. 251; (2) the softening of penances, May, A.D. 252; (3) and (4) Sept., CH. XI] SCHISMS IN AFRICA. 269 baptism in the name of the Trinity was valid, and Pope Stephen endeavoured to enforce this in Africa. Cyprian could not admit the validity of any rite performed out- side the Church, and in his correspondence with Stephen, whilst he vindicated the liberty of his church and province, he shewed a less liberal spirit in regard to heretics than the Roman bishop.!. From the martyrdom of Cyprian, A.D. 258, to the persecution under Diocletian, the history of the church of Carthage and Africa is of little importance. No Christian community, however, dis- played more constancy and courage during that terrible ordeal. After the Edict of Milan, a.p. 313, the schism of the Donatists caused the divisions of the African “Church to become a by-word in Chris- tendom till they were in part allayed by the great Augustine. The city of Alexandria has had a more Sr ror ri powerful influence on the human mind "than any other of antiquity, Jerusalem and Athens alone excepted. It united three continents and presented in itself the distinctive types of the main divisions of the human race. It was the permanent trophy of a conqueror divinely appointed, as Plutarch deems, to bring Greek culture to the barbarians:? to fuse (we may add) the ideas of East and West. Founded by Greeks, Alexandria became a centre of Greek philo- sophy and learning. Its situation made it the common mart of Europe and Asia, through which not only the trade but also the ideas of the East passed westward. Standing on African soil at the mouth of the great river of Egypt, Alexandria caught something of the spirit of that wonderful civilization and religion which A.D. 253 and 254, Episcopal cases and an appeal from Spain against Rome; and (5) A.D. 255, (6) Lent, a.p. 256, (7) Sept., A.D. 256, on re-baptism. See Benson, of. cit. 1. Cyprian, £4. 74, 75. In justice to Cyprian it must be remem- bered that the general view of baptism was that it purged all sins, and that sin after baptism was infinitely more heinous than before. Cyprian’s desire may have been to give heretics who entered the Church the full advantage of the baptismal Sacrament. 2. Neander, Church History, vol. 1., p. 69. Mahaffy, S7/ver Age of the Greek World, p. 283. 270 THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH. __ [cH, xu was old when many ancient races of Europe and Asia were young, and still combined the animal-worship of a barbarous paganism with lofty doctrines of life and immortality. The same inconsistency manifests itself in the history of Greek and Christian Alexandria. We have repeatedly to contrast the profoundest wisdom and wisest liberality of thought with the most awful exhibitions of fanaticism and ferocity. The great school of Greek philosophy was in the zenith of its glory when the mob of Alexandria tore a man in pieces and devoured him. The Alexandrian church, under its bishop, Cyril, was defining the creed of the world when the populace, urged on by frantic monks, tore the beautiful Hypatia to death limb from limb.? To Alexandria and Egypt we are indebted alike for the glories and the shame of the Christian religion—for the best specimens of Chris- tian philosophers, scholars and theologians, and for some of the most repulsive examples of monastic brutality. The history of the church of Alexandria may be said to precede Christianity, in the sense that many Christian ideas and usages existed there long before the introduction of the Gospel. The attempt to exalt Serapis into the position of a god for the whole world shewed how a tendency to universality in religion was already dominating heathenism.? Here Judaism had translated its sacred writings into Greek, and had even evinced its sympathy with heathen philosophy by its attempt to prove that the sages of Greece had learned their wisdom from Moses and the Prophets. The Thera- peutae had already formed communities in the neigh- bourhood of Lake Mareotis, near Alexandria, for the purpose of prayer and ascetic discipline.t Renan, not without reason, infers that the presence of a liberal and active Judaism, which largely satisfied the cravings of 1. Juvenal, Sat., xv. 80. 2. Socrates, H, Z. vit. 15. 3. Serapis was introduced into Egypt by Ptolemy I. Tacitus, Hist. iv. 84. ; 4. Eusebius, A. Z#. 11. 173 but see Prof. Gwatkin’s Studies of Arianism, in which the De Vita Contemplativa is called ‘a religious novel of the fourth century”: it is not, however, certain that this is correct, Mr. Conybeare, in his edition of the treatise, being very strongly in favour of the Philonic authorship. For history of the criticism see Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 54 fi. > ry oe ee CH. X1.] ITS CONSTITUTION. 271 the human spirit, accounts for the comparatively late introduction of Christianity into Egypt. In the Christian history, with its lengthy list of towns visited by Apostles, Alexandria indeed is conspicuously absent. In the New Testament we have no mention of any community of Alexandrian believers; and Apollos, the only Alexandrian Jew whose name occurs in the Acts and Epistles, was connected with the church of Ephesus. We have to content our curiosity with the tradition quoted by Eusebius, that St. Mark, after publishing St. Peter’s teaching to gratify the Christians of Rome, journeyed to Egypt and founded the Alexandrian church.} The constitution of the Church in Alexandria was somewhat unusual. The Christians divided the city into twelve districts, each of which was assigned to the care of a presbyter. Together the twelve presbyters formed a college which claimed the right of electing a bishop from their number, and (if we may credit Jerome) of consecrating him themselves.2 This custom prevailed till the time of Demetrius, a.p. 189—232, who is said by Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria in the tenth century, to have changed this singular ecclesiastical arrangement by appointing three bishops in addition to the bishop of Alexandria, who had formerly governed the whole province. During the long episcopate of Demetrius the three great teachers, Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, presided over the famous Catechetical School of Alexandria. The conduct of the bishop towards the last-named scholar proves him to have been a strict and somewhat arbitrary upholder of the authority of his office. The church and city of Alexandria, however, were visited by severe calamities in the time of Demetrius, when his firmness must have been of value to the Chris- tian community. The severe persecution of Septimius Severus took place a.p. 202; and his ferocious son Caracalla, two years before his death in 217, irritated by: the railleries of the Egyptians, ordered a general massacre of the Alexandrians, in which many thousands 1. Eusebius, A. &. 11. 16. 2. See above, Chapter X., p. 227, n. 4. 3. Lightfoot, PAclippzans, p. 230. Bishops of Alexandria; 272 BISHOPS OF ALEXANDRIA, (CH. x1. perished.’ Demetrius was succeeded by two pupils of Origen, Heraclas (a.p. 233—248), and the wise and learned Dionysius (a.D. 248—265), called by Eusebius “the great bishop of Alexandria”.? Reference has already been made in this work both to the persecution of Decius which was especially severe at Alexandria in the time of Dionysius, and to the plague and famine which visited the city during his episcopate. We have also had occasion to notice the wisdom and moderation displayed by the same bishop in the doctrinal disputes of his time. Alexandria was the chief centre of a method of interpretation which has taken a very powerful hold of the human imagination. Allegorism, or the attempt to extract a twofold meaning from ancient writers and poets, was not peculiar either to Jews or Christians. It has its origin in the feeling that, whilst the venerable antiquity of certain books gives them a sanctity in the eyes of their readers, their contents are not always such as to inspire sufficient reverence. The plain narrative is accordingly assumed to conceal a profounder meaning at which the author only hinted in types and shadows. The philosophers of Greece applied this method in dealing with the poems of Homer. ‘These were not only used as an educational manual for boys and students, but were also regarded in the light of a sacred record of Greek antiquity. In the hands of such teachers Homer became a manual of physical science and moral philosophy. To them the narrative, valueless in itself, was but a peg for the attachment of transcendental truths. The story of Paris, for example, is the history of the soul in its sensuous life, which sees not the other powers in the world but only Beauty, and says that the apple (i.e. the World) is the property of Love. The Odyssey, again, represented man as carried here and there on the sea of life by his passions, and tempted by the siren-voice of pleasure.’ The allegorical method seems to have been first applied Allegorism. 1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. vi. 2. Euseb., H. #. vil. Praef. A 3. See Hatch, Hzbbert Lectures, 1888, p. 64. i ' de |. ” : SS ee CH, XI.] ALLEGORY AND SCRIPTURE. 273 to the Jewish Scriptures in Alexandria by Philo. The Christian teachers followed in his steps. They found the Old Testament narratives often as perplexing as the philosophers had found the Homeric accounts of the gods, and felt more keenly than their rivals the necessity of proving their sacred books a compendium of all truth. Allegorism was their sole means of escape from the difficulty. Thus it is that Philo, Clement, Origen, and their less able disciples, persistently wrest the Scriptures into a collection of types foreshadowing their own peculiar notions! The effects of this mistaken treatment of the writings held in reverence by the Church are still apparent in that absolutely unhistorical spirit in which certain modern commentators ignore the standpoint of the ancient author in their endeavour to make him the exponent of the theological views of their own day. Prompted originally by a rationalising spirit, allegorism has become the servant of those who refuse to avail themselves of increasing light in their perusal of the Scriptures. To the Alexandrian Fathers, however, let us add, we owe its remedy, no less than the transmitted disease. Origen, the most allegorical interpreter of Scripture, laid the foundation of a sounder method of study, which became the glory of the school of Antioch. His labours in the field of critical enquiry deserve the careful attention of the student. ! i Frequent allusion has already been made pie of oviger- tothe great name of Origen. A short résumé of the chief facts of his life may be of service to the reader before approaching the important subject of his critical labours. Origenes Adamantius, born 185, the son of Leonides, an Alexandrian Christian, was perhaps, as his name implies, of Egyptian descent.? His father gave him a thorough education, not only in the Christian but also in the Greek literature, and from the first Origen combined the diligence of a student with the fervour of a believer. When Leonides suffered 1. One very striking feature in Origen is his dread of the homeliness of Scripture. Bigg, Church’s Task, p. 26. 2. Epiphanius calls him an Egyptian, Porphyry (ap. Euseb., 7. Z. vi. 19) a Greek. The name Origen is derived from the Egyptian deity Horus. S 274 ORIGEN AT ALEXANDRIA, © (CH. x martyrdom in the persecution of Septimius Severus, it was with difficulty that the mother of Origen prevented the boy from deliberately provoking the same fate. Leonides left seven children, of whom Origen was the eldest. The family was supported, partly by a wealthy widow, and partly by the fees received by Origen from his pupils. His zeal for Christianity, however, soon induced the youthful lecturer to abandon the work of teaching Greek literature. In order that he might devote himself completely to sacred studies, he sold his manuscripts for a pension of 4 obols (about 6d.) a day. On this scanty pittance he managed to live the life of a strict ascetic. At the early age of eighteen, Origen was appointed by bishop Demetrius to succeed his former master Clement as the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, a.D. 204. His lectures were largely attended, and he appears to have possessed a singular power of arousing the enthusiasm of his disciples. Among these was Gregory Thaumaturgus, afterwards bishop of Neocaesarea, who has described the method of his exposition. We gather that he made it his aim to interpret by the light of Christianity all that was valuable in the old philosophies. Porphyry relates that Origen himself attended the school of Ammonius Saccas, the great Neo-Platonist.! If he did so, it was doubtless with the laudable purpose of keeping himself abreast with the best pagan philosophy of the day. From a similar motive in regard to Judaism he departed from the custom of his age and studied Hebrew. Opportunities were not at this time far to seek, for his mother, as we infer from the account of Jerome, had also acquired that language. In view of the rarity of such attainments we may perhaps conjecture that she was a Jewess by birth. In A.D. 215 a serious tumult at Alexandria compelled Origen to leave the city. He retired to Palestine, where he was received with great honour by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea, who invited him to expound the Scriptures in the religious 1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Origenes’, vol. IV., p. 99. Euseb., 2. 2, VI. 19. CH. XI] ORIGEN IN SYRIA. 275 assemblies of the Christians. This appointment, rarely accorded to a layman, was considered by bishop Demetrius as an infringement on the privileges of the clerical order. He peremptorily recalled Origen to his duties at the head of the Alexandrian Cate- chetical School, a.p. 219. Origen on his return entered upon a new sphere of activity. Hitherto he had been a teacher; now, at the instigation of his friend Ambrosius, he began to publish his lectures. Ambrosius was a man of considerable wealth, and was able to hire a large number of male and female clerks to copy Origen’s treatises.1 He appears to have acted the part of both patron and friend, and Origen playfully calls him his “‘ taskmaster” (épryoSubeerns). Origen left most of the work of the Catechetical School to his colleague Heraclas, and devoted himself to the publication of the Commentary on St.) Jolin;#andi of wihis'*-bold philosophical work on First Principles (wept apyav). We have elsewhere had occasion to notice Origen’s final breach with Demetrius. It is sufficient to observe here that its occasion was the great Alexandrian’s receiving ordination as presbyter in the foreign town of Caesarea. In the year 231 Origen finally quitted Alexandria. ‘The bishops of Syria welcomed him, and, notwithstanding the remonstrances of Demetrius, allowed him to teach at Caesarea, which was henceforward Origen’s home. The persecution of Maximinus (A.D. 235—237) compelled him to withdraw for a while to Cappadocia. He here became the guest of Juliana, a Christian lady, in whose house he found some of the books of Symmachus, the translator of the Old Testament. In 238 Origen was again at Caesarea. He subsequently spent some time in Greece, and, besides visiting many places in the Holy Land, made two expeditions into Arabia by special invitation, to refute Beryllus of Bostra, and to explain the true doctrine of the Resurrection. Under the per- secution of Decius this noted Christian teacher was selected for torture and a cruel imprisonment, which hastened his end. He died at Tyre (a.p. 253) at the age of sixty-nine. 1. Hom. in Johann. vi. 2, Euseb., 4. 2. Vi. 23. $2 276 THE SCRIPTURES IN GREEK. [CH. XI. The Hexapla, that great monurnent of the industry of Origen, was long the glory of the church of Caesarea. In this work the Old Testament was presented to the reader with the Hebrew original and the different Greek versions in parallel columns.’ The object of its publisher was both to shew the superiority of the ancient Septuagint version when compared with more recent translations, and also to emend its text. It must be remembered that the Christians of that uncritical age regarded the Lxx with deep veneration, and that it was from this translation that they drew their arguments against the Jews. It was believed to be a divinely inspired work. Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement agree in relating the story of each of the seventy-two translators being shut up in different cells, and all producing the same version with verbal exactitude.? The Jews of Palestine, although they must have known how widely the xx differed in places from the Hebrew, acquiesced in the Alexandrian version without much demur. When, however, they found that the Christian controversialists made large use of passages widely divergent from the original, they naturally began to recognise its blemishes, New Greek translations of the Scriptures were accordingly produced, and in these some of the so-called Messianic prophecies were so rendered as to lose their significance. Irenaeus, for example, points out that in the well-known verse (Isa. vii. 14), ‘Behold, a Virgin shall conceive,” the versions of Aquila and Theodotion had altered the Septuagint’s mapOévos into vedvis, a young woman.® Origen, in order to shew the excellence of the Lxx, which had become the Christian Old Testament, placed it side by side with the other versions and the Hebrew original, The Hebrew occupied the first column; in the second was a mere transliteration—the Hebrew The Hexapla. 1. Origen also published the four Greek versions by themselves. This is known as the Tetrapla. Euseb., 4. #. vi. 16. 2. Bleek, Jutrod. Old Test., vol. 11, p. 397. Irenaeus, iii, 21. Clem. Alex., Strom. i, 22. Justin Martyr, Cohort. ad Graec., c. 13. Epiphanius (de Mens. et Pond., cc. 3, 6, 9—11) only differs in making the seventy-two interpreters work in pairs in thirty-six cells. 3. Iren., Maer. III. 23. CH. X1.] LITERALISM AND ALLEGORISM. 277 being put in Greek characters. Aquila’s version came next: then that of Symmachus; the .Lxx and the translation by Theodotion occupying the last two columns. In some passages two other versions were added, the work being called the Hexapla from the six principal columns. We have said that emendation formed part of Origen’s design. Where words in the original were not expressed in the Lxx the hiatus was filled up. Where words in the Lxx had no counterpart in the Hebrew an obelus indicated the divergence from the original.} The publication of the Hexafla was a great step towards the science of Biblical criticism. A new school of Biblical exegesis arose in the Church. We have seen how the fantastical system of allegorizing the Scriptural narrative led the Alexandrian Fathers astray. A cor- rective to this was provided by the school of Antioch. The Syrian Christians, who had supported Origen in his dispute with Demetrius, continued his work. A noble line of textual and grammatical commentators carried on what the great Alexandrian had begun. Pamphilus, and his friend and disciple the historian Eusebius, Lucian the Martyr, and Dorotheus, were the prominent scholars during and after Diocletian’s persecution ;* and their method of interpreting Scripture was inherited by the greatest of the Antiochene Fathers, John Chrysostom. The history of the fourth and fifth centuries shews how the difference between the two great schools of Alexandria and Antioch distracted the Christian world—the mysticism of the one leading to Monophy- sitism, the literalism of the other to the error of Nestorius. Inasense the controversy between allegorism and literalism in interpretation is an eternal one. Alle- gorism, with all its extravagances, maintains the truth The School of tioch. 1. For full information as to the rules observed by Origen in restoring the text of the Lxx, see Prolegomena in Hexapla Origents, Field, Hexapla, vol. 1. Hier. 2m Ep. ad Titum. See Dr. Swete, /utroduction to Old Test. tn Greek, Pt. 1, c. iil. 2, Eusebius and Pamphilus copied the Lxx from Origen’s Hexap/a. Lucian the Martyr also devoted much attention to the text of the Lxx. 278 DEFECTS OF LITERALISM. (CH. XI. that beneath the surface of such writings as the Jewish and Christian Scriptures lies a deeper and fuller meaning. Literalism, despite the good sense and calm judgment which are its boast, sometimes results in the true sense being sacrificed to the supposed exigencies of grammatical or critical canons, CHAPTER XII. CONSTANTINE IN THE WEST. THE EMPIRE AND THE CHURCH. Tue Edict of Milan! is one of the Sree heme _ turning-points in the history of the world. A.D. 313. Though to all outward appearance it was merely an edict of toleration, giving every subject of the Empire the right to worship according to the dictates of his conscience, it was of far deeper significance. In recognising the right of the Christian Church to exist, Constantine had given her the power to rule. The association which had survived such an attack as Diocletian’s great persecution had proved to mankind that it possessed a vitality, which would enable it ultimately to crush all the effete pagan religions within the limits of the Roman empire. That Constantine as a statesman recognised the significance of his action is shewn by the fact that he very soon earnestly set himself to work to unite and consolidate the Church, and before he was even a Christian catechumen took an interest in the question of that deepest mystery of the Faith, the relation of the Word or Son to the God and Father of All. It requires but little knowledge of “i pegnpel pana human nature to credit Constantine with Rothe Chasen? * a real belief in the spiritual character of the Christian Faith, and with much genuine conviction in adopting it. To ascribe to the Emperor no higher motive than a desire to utilise the _ Church as an engine of government would be to do him no small injustice, as well as to mistake his personal 1. Vide supra, p. 92. 280 RELIGION OF CONSTANTINE, (CH. XII. character. Nevertheless we are tolerably safe in at- tributing to Constantine a certain amount of deliberate policy in sanctioning and encouraging the development of the Christian Church. He had been sent by his father Constantius at the age of eighteen (A.D. 292) to the court of Diocletian, and had been a special favourite of that statesmanlike emperor.’ This was long before the outbreak of the persecution, and the youth may, even at that early age, have recognised in the Church the possible ally of a good ruler. His experience of the persecution under Galerius may well have convinced him that a hostile policy was a totally mistaken one; and his subsequent rivalry with Maxentius revealed to him the advantage of the support of a body like the Christians, desiring public tranquillity and a regular government. But political motives were not the Emperor's sole reason for gradually repudiating Paganism. It has been observed that military leaders have often proved very susceptible to religious influences.? The peril to which they may be at any moment exposed makes such men naturally seek protection from above ; and a general whose efforts have been crowned with constant success, or who is about to undertake some desperate enterprise, often attributes the former to divine protection, and approaches the latter resolved to trust in that power which has hitherto preserved him.. Con- stantine’s career seems to justify this observation. In early life he believed himself to be under the peculiar protection of the Sun-god. At the supreme crisis of the contest with Maxentius, however, he appears to have decided that the God Whose adversaries had perished so miserably? was the most powerful assistant he could invoke. Eusebius’ account‘ of his vision and of the 1. Euseb., Vita Const. 1.19. The courtly historian compares him to Moses in the palace of Pharaoh. Diocletian is admitted to have been very favourable to the Christians early in his reign. 2. Broglie, L’£glise et 2 Empire, vol. 1., p. 213. Both Herculius (Maximian) and Severus had perished at the hands of the executioner, and Galerius had died of an awful disease. Broglie, op. ezt., vol. I., p. 243. 4. Euseb., Vita Const. 1. 27, évvoet 577a dwotov Séor Gedy éwvypdacbas B6y8ov indicates the pagan attitude of the Emperor’s mind at that time. CH. xu.] WAS THE VISION MIRACULOUS? 281 adoption of the Labarum as a standard, shews what a strange mixture of pagan and Christian ideas existed in his mind. 3 The mysterious appearance which had the Vision of such an effect on Constantine has been related by Eusebius and Lactantius, who were both contemporaries of the Emperor.) ‘Their accounts differ very materially, and their conflicting evidence throws a doubt on the story. That Constantine thought he had seen a vision, or even that he actually did see something, seems evident, but the nature of the apparition is not equally clear. The miraculous character of the vision has been called in question on various grounds, the strongest of which seems to be its inconsistency with the character of the Gospel dispensation and the teaching of its Divine Founder. That He who had foretold that they that used the sword should perish by the sword should consecrate war by making the cross on which He had redeemed mankind a charm to secure victory in battle, is sufficiently incredible. How is the difficulty increased when we reflect that the warrior thus frequently favoured by visions from on High? was about to shed the blood of his own son in such an intrigue as might befit the palace of a Herod or a Philip II. of Spain! But however we 1. Eusebius, Vita Const. 1. 28. Lactantius, De Mortibus Per- secutorum, c. 44. Eusebius, writing after Constantine’s death in A.D. 337, says that the Emperor had told him and swore to the truth of his words, that just after midday he and the whole army had seen a luminous cross in the sky above the sun, inscribed with the words ‘ By this conquer’; and that the ensuing night Christ had appeared to him directing him to frame a standard like it as a means of victory. Nothing is said about the miracle by Eusebius in the Tenth Book of his Azstory published in a.p. 326. According to Lactantius, just before the battle at the Milvian Bridge **Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle.” The triumphal arch of Constantine records that he had saved and avenged the Roman republic ‘‘instinctu Divinitatis, mentis. magnitudine”. And the fact of some divine manifestation at this time to the Emperor is alluded to vaguely in Paneg. 313, and precisely by the pagan orator Nazarius. See Constantine the Great by J. B. Firth (Heroes of the Nations), pp. 94 f£; Abbott, Phz/omythus, p. 165. i De 2. Kal yap 5) xal Oeodavelas adtov wodddxis Hélov, says Eusebius, op. cit. 1. 47. Crispus, son, and Fausta, wife, of Constantine were executed A.D. 326. 282 CONSTANTINE’S POLICY. — [CH. XIL. regard the conversion of Constantine and the attendant miracle, we must admit that the story reveals to us the fact that we are on the threshold of the middle ages, It is no long step from the legend of the Labarum, which made the Cross the ensign of the army that fought the battle of the Church, to the proclamation of religious warfare. ‘The age in which Christ appeared to Constantine, and ordered him to fight with a good courage against Maxentius, foreshadows that in which St. Peter invites Charles Martel to attack the Lombards. It breathes indeed the spirit of the time when the Cross was taken by the Christian nations on the eve of the first Crusade. a Apparently the first act of the Emperor ality artes itp Constantine was to put forth a rescript Battle ofthe tolerating all religious bodies. The text gee a has not come down tous. Neander infers D312, ++‘that it gave a person leave to continue in the religious body in which he happened to be at the time, but did not permit him to forsake it for another.!. De Broglie on the other hand supposes that it contained a permission to all sects to practise their religion, even although their cult was repugnant to the interests of morality.2 The heathen religion was treated with the utmost respect by the cautious emperor. He accepted the title of Pontifex Maximus, which indeed was retained by his successors for nearly a century; and although he does not appear to have sacrificed to the gods at the time of his triumph, his medals even at a later period bear their images. In a.p. 314 he omitted the Ludi saeculaves, which ought to have been celebrated at Rome; and to the great indignation of the Romans, he refused to take part in the rites of Jupiter Capitolinus.*® But despite this partial withdrawal from heathen practices, the Arch of Constantine, erected in 315 to 1. Neander, Hest. Church, vol. 111., pp. 17-18. Gaston Boissier, Fi du Paganisme, vol. 1., p. 49, on the Edict of Milan. 2. Boissier says of the first rescript : ‘‘Nous ne savons quelles difficultés en rendirent l’exécution impossible. Quelques indices feraient croire qu’il — était concu dans des termes d’une généralité qu’il semblait sétendre a des sectes ennemis de toutes morales, et favoriser par la uae licence périlleuse.” op. ctt., vol. I,, p. 240. 5 3. Robertson, Ast, Church, vol. 1., p. 258. SS ee yy CH. XL] EDICT OF MILAN. 233 commemorate his triumphs, shews that he had not altogether broken with all pagan associations. Although the inscription says that the Senate and Roman people dedicated the arch, the language may be assumed to represent the feelings of the Emperor. His victory over the tyrant Maxentius is represented as achieved “instinctu divinitatis”. This ambiguous phrase may express either the divine nature of the ro év of Plato, or the power of that true God Whose worshippers the Emperor had begun to favour. Eusebius says that the figure of Constantine at Rome, erected by the Emperor himself, bore a spear in the form of a cross, and that the inscription attributed the victory of the Emperor to that saving sign. Constantine had summoned Licinius The Edict of to meet him, and the imperial conference A.D. 313. took place at Milan. This city, the capital of Maximian Herculius during his tenure of empire, would naturally be preferred by Constantine to Rome, where he was troubled by the claims of the Senate and the pagan proclivities of the majority of the inhabitants. Moreover, Milan was a city more suited to the promulgation of a new policy than Rome with her great traditions of the past. The immediate occasion of the interview was the marriage of Licinius to Con- stantine’s sister. The importance of this event in the eyes of the latter emperor was so great that the aged Diocletian was invited, but he refused to come. He was broken by ill-health, and by sorrow at the cruel treat- ment which his wife and daughter had received at the hands of Maximin Daza. On receipt of a brutal and insulting letter from Constantine he refused to touch food and died.” The text of the famous edict 1s somewhat obscure,® but its main provisions were, that each man 1. Euseb., Vita Const. 1. 40. Sépv oravpod oxjuatt. 2. Dr. Mason says in a foot-note, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 341: **Thisis Lactantius’ account. . . . . Eusebius knows nothing of the suicide. The Younger Victor (zt. xxxix. 8) places his death in the nearest relation to Constantine’s threatening letter, . . . . but he makes the mode poison. Eutropius has the same story word for word. .. . Zonaras (X11. 33) records a legend that he aimed at the Empire and was executed by order of the Senate.” 3. An abridgement of this rescript is given by Lactantius, JZor¢. fersec., c. 48, and a Greek translation by Eusebius, #. Z. x. 5. 234 LEGISLATION OF CONSTANTINE. ([CH. x11. should have leave to worship in whatever way he thought fit, and that no one should be prevented from either practising or embracing the Christian Faith. It likewise provided that the property of the Christian corporation which had been confiscated during the persecution should be restored. Constantine’s victory over Maxentius pane et of was a turning point in the history of AD. 812-323: the Empire. The divided administration planned by Diocletian was doomed, and a reconstitution of the government was accompanied by great legislative activity. The favour which Constan- tine had shewn to the Christians makes us anxious to discover how far Christian influences were at work in shaping his administrative labours. In laws promul- © gated in a Christian state we may reasonably look for greater mercy towards criminals, and for a mitigation of the hardships suffered by the weak or helpless. On the other hand, the teachers of the Gospel are disposed to be less indulgent than heathen lawgivers to acts of impurity and kindred offences, which are ignored, or regarded as very trivial, by legislators imbued with the lax ideas of a pagan morality. Accordingly we shall seek for the influence of Christianity in Constantine’s legislation when it affects (1) Criminals and debtors, (2) Slaves, (3) Children, (4) Marriage; and to these we may add (5) The Christian Church. As early as a.D. 314 Constantine Qt) Seri forbade the infliction of capital punish- ment upon any person, unless he either confessed his crime, or the testimony of his accusers was unanimous. It was forbidden to brand slaves and criminals on the face, because it is the image of the heavenly beauty. Debtors to the fiscus were not to be punished by scourging, but to be kept in free custody; nor were accused persons to be imprisoned in dungeons — without light, nor to be unnecessarily loaded with chains. The acta in criminal cases were to be shewn to the defendant and his advisers, as in civil actions. In addition to this, in criminal cases all men were to be tried by the magistrate of the province, because crime ¢ffaces all distinctions of rank. CH. XII.) SLAVES. CHILDREN. 285 ; Slavery, with the exception of war (2) Slaves; has been ie evil most difficult to eradi- cate from the world; but though the primitive Church did not openly denounce this practice, the tendency of the Christian religion has ever been in favour of personal liberty. Nor may we overlook the fact that there had been a certain advance in humanity even during the time in which the Roman empire was still heathen. The brutal maxims of Cato the Censor in regard to slaves had long ceased to be popular. ‘Tacitus speaks of the public indignation caused by the execution of the four hundred slaves of Pedanius Secundus as early as A.D. 61; and Seneca in one passage uses language in regard to slaves which greatly resembles that of St. Paul.? Crucifixion and the breaking the legs was abolished apparently in 315. In the following year Constantine allowed slaves to be liberated in Christian churches. In 334 a most beneficial law forbade the families of slaves to be divided when estates changed hands. (3) Children ; In most heathen countries the un- * natural custom of exposing children, whose parents are either too poor or too selfish to maintain them, meets with no public reprobation, and is exten- sively practised. In the Roman world the practice had become fearfully common ;° and from the first, Christian compassion had taken the children thus cruelly aban- doned under special protection. Constantine’s legis- lation sought to remedy this evil, a sure proof that the Church had made her influence felt in his policy. In 315 a law, due partly no doubt also to the alarming decrease of the population of the Empire, was issued from Naissus in Dardania, ordering that those children whose parents were too poor to support them should be maintained at the expense of the fiscus. In 322 the public distress caused a law of more questionable wisdom to be promulgated; the sale of children, which had been forbidden by Diocletian, was legalised, and children who had been exposed by their parents and rescued by a compassionate stranger, could not be claimed from 1. Tacitus, du. XIV. 42. | 2. Seneca, de Beneficits. 1 Tim, vi. 2, Alford’s note. 3. Tert., Afol.,c. 9. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xiv. 286 MARRIAGE, THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [cH, xIL their preserver. Exposing children was not punishable till the time of Valentinian, a.p. 374. The Christian religion of this period (*) Marriage and regarded marriage in a two-fold light. sexes ; On the one hand it exalted it to its true position of a sacred and perpetual union © between man and woman; on the other, it lowered the institution by preferring chaste celibacy to marriage. Constantine recognised both these Christian tendencies. He removed the liabilities attaching to celibate life by the ancient law, by freeing unmarried and childless persons from the taxes laid specially upon them.! This, we are told, was a change very acceptable to the Christians. In regard to the sanctity of marriage, he sought to put an end to the sin of incontinence by laws which reflect more credit on his zeal for purity than on his legislative wisdom or his humanity. A servant who had been party to seduction was to have boiling lead poured down her throat. Both the guilty parties were to be punished with death. It was Constantine’s aim to make the (©) The Christian Church a privileged body, and his legis- lation shews that his policy was to make the clergy gradually take the place of the heathen priesthood as a distinct order in the State. In dealing with the Church his object was gradually to transfer to Christianity from heathenism all that had hitherto made it attractive in the eyes of the people. The Church was made a corporation capable of receiving legacies,? and the clergy were exempted from the office of decuvion, a public position which at one time had been con- sidered an honour, but which, by reason of the holder’s penal liability to the government for the taxes of his district, had become an odious and burthensome public duty.2 This was as early as 313, and two years later the lands of the clergy were apparently exempted from 1. Euseb., Vita Const. iv. 26, 28. 2. Codex Theod., XVIII., laws 1, 2, 3. De Broglie, vol. I., p. 307. 3. See Guizot, Histoire de la Civilisation en France, Lect. 1. For a discussion of the curvales, &c., see Bigg, Church's Task, Excursus on Lect. ‘Iv. CH. XII.) LEGISLATION OF CONSTANTINE. 287 taxation. In 321 the first day of the week (dies vene- vabilis solis) was ordered to be kept as a holiday and day of rest,? thus giving the day honoured by the Church a public recognition. But the effect of imperial favour was not wholly salutary. The hope of pleasing the Emperor and the desire of sharing in the privileges he had granted to the Christians induced many impostors to seek admission into the pale of the Church, whilst the exemption from the decurionate made several men of curial rank join the clergy for the purpose of evading the duties of that troublesome office. Constantine did not deprive the clergy of their privilege directly: but in providing against its abuse he dealt the Church a severe blow, by preventing anyone belonging to the cuviales from taking holy orders. Thus the influence of wealth and education was arbitrarily withdrawn from the clerical order. The number of priests was also limited by statute, and they were to be chosen from the poor, “because the rich must contribute to the necessities of the age, and the poor should be nourished by the wealth of the Church.’ aes; ?; The most noticeable feature in the Christian advisers Jegislation of Constantine is the strong A.D. 312—323. stamp of the personal influence of the Emperor which it bears. Constantine is remarkable for having promulgated an almost entirely new constitution, in which nearly every relation of human society was altered, without meeting with any serious opposition. That he was not resisted by heathen subjects, among whom passive obedience to the will of the ruler had become almost a second nature, is less wonderful than that the Christian Church, which had fought and conquered in the death struggle with the persecuting emperors, should calmly submit to his decrees. We may account for this by the fact that the 1. Robertson (Azst. of the Chr. Ch. 1. p. 258-9) quotes the Theodosian Code, X1l., tit. 1. 2. Euseb., Vita Const. Iv. 18. Codex Justin, X11. 3. Eusebius perhaps, and Sozomen expressly (1. 8), say that Friday was also to be observed, but nothing of this is found in the laws of the Theodosian Code. 3. See Broglie, vol. 1., p. 307. Codex Theod. xVI., tit. 2, laws 3 and 6. 288 HOSIUS OF CORDOVA. | [CH. XII. Church from the death of St. Cyprian to the rise of St. Athanasius had produced comparatively few men of commanding abilities... The notable exception to this rule is Hosius of Cordova. Notwithstanding his having in extreme old age signed the heretical creed of Sirmium, Hosius seems to have been a man of much sanctity and capacity, which gave him great. influence with the Emperor. He was certainly with Constantinein A.D. 313, as his name is mentioned in the latter’s epistle to Caecilianus of Carthage.2 He was not present at the Council of Arles, a.p. 314, being presumably with the Emperor, who was on a campaign against Licinius in Pannonia. In 316 he was evidently with Constantine, for when the Donatists were condemned in that year they spread abroad a most unfair report that the severity of the Emperor was due to the influence of Hosius. In A.D. 321 Hosius is addressed in the law permitting slaves to be liberated in the presence of the clergy.’ It may be added that Lactantius, in his position as tutor to Crispus, was often about the Emperor’s person, and to the influence of this writer’s Christian Institutes parts of Constantine’s legislation may be due, especially his unsuccessful attempts to suppress the gladiatorial games. The Christianity of the African Aion bad the Church was from fie first distinguished schiem of the by a fervour apparently peculiar to the ’ inhabitants of the ancient Phoenician colony of Carthage. The terrible energy of the affection which Virgil depicts in Dido, and the stern fixity of purpose which made Hannibal so formidable an enemy of the Roman people, reappear in the new Carthage which rose to opulence under the Roman empire. The fiery and uncompromising fanaticism of Tertullian found in the austere sect of the Montanists a more congenial home than in the wider bosom of the Catholic Church. In the severely orthodox Cyprian, who ruled — the church on sternest hierarchical principles, and 1. I owe this idea to the exhaustive article on ‘ Constantine’ in the Dict. of Christian Biography. 2. Euseb., H. &. x. 6. 3. Mr. Dale, in his essay on the Council of Elvira, makes some suggestive remarks about the life of Hosius. CH. xI.] DISPUTES FOLLOWING PERSECUTION. 289 indignantly repudiated the Roman bishop Stephen's charitable view of heretical baptism, we detect similar traits of character. Great and holy as St. Augustine was, it is a noteworthy fact that the more unamiable of the Reformers found his works strangely attractive, and the gloomiest of modern theological doctrines is due to his teaching on the mysterious subject of predestination. Is it fanciful to trace in the Spanish temperament of the middle ages a continuation of the splendid heroism, the intense devotion, and the gloomy fanatical spirit of the Africans of antiquity? Can we not fancy Tertullian under different circumstances a Torquemada, and Cyprian combining the wisdom and the ruthless vandalism of Cardinal Ximenes?+ We should naturally expect a church animated by so fiery a spirit of devotion to behave with heroism in times of persecution, and to be distracted by the most bitter intestine discords when a cessation of trials from without gave an opportunity for strife to break out within. Accordingly we find that a persecution tes cea in Africa was usually followed by a bitter perplexed by dispute as to whether those who had cen shewn weakness and had sacrificed to idols Church? Should be re-admitted to the Church. The more austere party desired not only that those who had sacrificed and denied Christ should be excluded, but that all who had in any way saved themselves, even by an apparent compliance with the demands of the heathen rulers, should be deemed un- worthy of continuing in the Church. The furious controversies in the church of Carthage during Cyprian’s administration turned on this point, and Diocletian’s persecution was destined to be followed by a schism resulting in the utter ruin of Christianity in the province of Africa. The real question at issue was whether the Church of Christ ought to consist only of those who had done justice to their Christian profession, or whether she ought to admit the weak, 1. He destroyed thousands of Arabic books of priceless value. Prescott, Ferdinand and Jsabella, vol. 11., p. 369. 7: 290 RESCRIPTS TO ANULINUS.~ ___[cu. xn. the erring, and the ignorant, in the hope of elevating them by her teaching and discipline. , : The church of Carthage had suffered addeeeeentine i¢ most severely under Maximian and Max- tothe African entius. It is probable also that the Church directly Christians were more numerous and in- after his conver- fl . . . : a gion, and finds fluential in this province than ‘in any that thereisa other. part of Constantine’s dominions. feel ae on Accordingly his good will towards the Carthage. | Christian religion was displayed almost immediately in a letter to Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, and two rescripts to Anulinus, under whose administration the persecution had pre- viously raged! The officer was now commanded to restore the property of the church and to exempt Christian clergymen from the public burdens. Caecilian was informed that an imperial grant of three thousand folles of wheat had been made to the African, Numi- dian, and Mauritanian churches. At the end of the letter Constantine hints that he knew of disturbances in the church, but he had formed no adequate idea of their seriousness. The reply of Anulinus informed him that a very influential party were opposed to Caecilian and had petitioned him to send a portfolio containing accusations against that bishop. ‘The sig- natories of the petition begged the Emperor that the question might be settled by the bishops of Gaul.* To understand the reason for this opposition to Caecilian it is necessary to go back to the days of the persecution. Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, had decided that his duty was to discourage any attempt to exasperate the government against the Church. ‘To prevent any of his flock from blindly seeking the honours of martyrdom, he set his face against the practice of crowds of admirers Cause of the Dispute. 1. Milman, Hest. Christiantty, vol, U., p. 299. See Mason, Persec. Diocletian, p. 154 ff. 2. Broglie, vol. I., p.254. Euseb., H. £. x. 6: xai érecdy érvOdunp, rivas uh KadeoTwons Siavolas Tuyxdvorras avOpwrous, Tov Kady Tis ayiwrdrns Kal xaOodcxhs éxxAnolas patrAy Tit tbrovodetce BovrhecOar dtacrpéper, ywwoKé we "Avurlyp. .. Toravras évrodas dedwxévat . . . K.T.A. 3. Broglie, vol. 1., p. 260. For documentary evidence in the Donatist controversy, see Dupin’s edition of Optatus of Milevis. Aug., Epp., 63, § 2. a CH. xI.]. UNPOPULARITY OF CAECILIAN. 291 visiting the Christian confessors in prison, and forbade his flock to honour those who had drawn persecution upon themselves by proclaiming that they had copies of the Scriptures. In pursuing this line of action Mensurius was only following St. Cyprian,! and his own good sense shewed him that many of these ostenta- tious confessors of Christ were men in trouble with their creditors or in difficulties with the police, and that they were really making a profit out of their sufferings.? But good sense is seldom popular among zealots, and the more fiery party of the African Church charged Mensurius with being himself a traditor of the sacred Scriptures committed to his care.2 But the un- popularity of Mensurius was small compared with that of his archdeacon, Caecilian. His cruelty was depicted by the zealots in vivid colours. The archdeacon, it was said, evinced his hatred of the martyrs by standing at the doors of the prison with attendants armed with leathern thongs in order to drive away those who approached with food or drink. Many of the martyrs, it was alleged, died of starvation, whilst the dogs devoured the food which piety had brought for their support. A dreadful picture was drawn by the Donatists, in after days, of the brutal Caecilian standing at the prison door unmoved by the shrieks and tears of the parents and relatives and friends of the confessors, who were prevented by him from approaching their loved ones for the purpose of bidding them a last farewell.+ Of course such charges, being of a kind frequently made by partisans, were entirely false, nor do they seem to have hurt Caecilian in the eyes of pious and reasonable men, for on the death of Mensurius in A.D. 311 he was chosen bishop of Carthage. He was consecrated by Felix, bishop of Aptunga. As might have been expected, a strong party in Carthage was found to be opposed to Caecilian, as sixty years before Novatus and his faction had opposed the election of Cyprian. A wealthy woman 1. Cyprian, Z/. 5. 2. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 169. 3. The charges against Mensurius are to be found in Augustine, Brevic. coll. cum Don. i. 13. 4. See the Passion of the Albitinian Martyrs in Dupin, Oftatus of Milevis, p. iv. ba 292 CABAL AGAINST CAECILIAN, _ [CH. XIL was the chief supporter of the malcontents. Lucilla, a Spanish lady of noble birth, who had a high reputation for piety, had been greatly offended by Caecilian’s having forbidden her to worship the relics of a martyr not, apparently, recognised by the Church.' She re- venged herself on him by entertaining a commission sent by Secundus, bishop of Tigisis and Primate of Numidia, at her house. The commission, though nomin- ally intended to promote peace, planned in concert with Lucilla the best means of overthrowing Caecilian. Secundus, with seventy bishops from Numidia, soon arrived at Carthage. A meeting was held in a private house, at which Caecilian was deposed on the ground that he had been consecrated by Felix of Aptunga, who was declared to have been a traditor during the perse- cution.?, Majorinus a reader, a friend of Lucilla, was consecrated bishop, and for a short time the faction opposed to Caecilian was called the party of Majorinus. As, however, Majorinus soon died, the schismatics received the name Donatists, either from their leader Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae, or from his more famous name-sake, the successor of Majorinus in the see of Carthage. Such then were the trifling causes of a schism which rent the Church of Africa in twain, and which was prolonged with a bitterness remarkable even in ecclesiastical disputes. 3 Constantine, finding that the dispute Constantine’s jin the Church of Africa could not easily policy towards be adjusted, decided that the case of Caecilian should receive the attention of the bishops of Italy and Gaul. Accordingly he caused three Gallican bishops, Maternus of Cologne, Reticius of 1. Hefele, istory of the Counctls, vol. 1., p. 175 (Eng. Trans.) Optatus’ words are: ‘‘ Lucillam scilicet nescioquam muliebrem factiosam... cum correptionem archidiaconi Caeciliani ferre non posset, quae ante spirie talem cibum et potum os nescio cujus martyris, si tamen martyris, libare dicebatur.”” Was it her superstition that was rebuked by Caecilian, or the adoration of the bone of one of those whose death Caecilian and Mensurius did not regard as a martyrdom? 2. The absurdity of the proceedings of this synod is shewn by the facts (a) that Felix was afterwards proved not to have been a ¢raditor, (6) that Secundus had admitted at the Synod of Cirta that he had himself given up the sacred Scriptures. Hefele, of. c#¢., p. 128. CH. XII. ] | SYNOD OF ARLES. 293 Autun, and Marinus of Arles, with fifteen Italian bishops, to form a sort of commission (A.D. 313) under Pope Miltiades or Melchiades to hear both parties at Rome.! Caecilian appeared with ten bishops of his party, and his accuser, Donatus of Casae Nigrae, with a like number. The innocence of Caecilian was established, and Miltiades, who had shewn great fairness and moderation throughout, sent two bishops to Africa to proclaim the fact that Caecilian’s was the Catholic party. The Donatists now declared that they had been unfairly heard, and that Caecilian was no bishop because he had been ordained by Felix of Aptunga, who was tpso facto excommunicate as a traditor. Here again they were foiled, for the question, by order of the Emperor, was investigated by the proconsul Aelian, and it was conclusively proved that Felix had not surrendered the Scriptures. Still the schismatics were not satisfied; and Constantine, who shewed un- wearied patience in dealing with them, Synod of tiles. ordered the bishops of the Western Church to assemble at Arles. Thirty-three bishops were present, among them three from Britain, Eborius of York, Restitutus from London, and Adelphius, or Adelfius, ‘de civitate Coloniae Londinensium’, together with a presbyter named Sacerdos, and Arminius a deacon.? Marinus of Arles apparently presided over this synod, which acquitted Caecilian, remarking in a letter on the subject to Silvester, the successor of Miltiades, that it was fortunate for his accusers that the Pope had not been present, or the sentence would certainly have been more severe.’ In the year following the Council of Arles, Donatus the Great succeeded the insignificant Majorinus as the representative of the faction in the see 1. Euseb,, HW. #. x. 5. With Miltiades is associated Marcus. Tillemont considers that he was St. Miroclus, bishop of Milan. He may also have been an important presbyter in the Roman church. Broglie, op. cit., vol. I., p. 263. 2. Bright (Zarly English Church History) considers that Adelfius was bishop of Caerleon on Usk. The number of bishops is given as thirty-three because of the signatures: but probably many more were present. Firth, Constantine the Great, p. 175. 3. Hefele, of. czt., p. 183. 294 THE CIRCUMCELLIONES, — (CH. X11. of Carthage, and the separatists had now the advantage | of a really able and energetic leader. | Pl) BST, For three years Constantine had avoided pronounces Pronouncing any decision in the matter against of the African schism. Caecilian was © Re eee detained in Italy after the Synod of OTTER Rome, and again in 315, whilst Con- stantine was endeavouring to evade having to exercise his personal authority in a purely ecclesiastical matter. At last, however, the Emperor was compelled to act, and on Nov. 14, 316, Caecilian was declared innocent in an imperial letter written from Milan. ; The sentence was necessarily attended Donatism b . becomesadise Dy executive measures to suppress the - affected party. schism, and the Donatists were now liable to punishment if they persisted. Ursacius was ordered to deprive them of their churches. Many who withstood this mandate lost their lives. But Constantine’s treatment of the Donatists can hardly be called a religious persecution. They had themselves appealed to the imperial decision, and after their case had been most carefully investigated both by churchmen appointed by Constantine and by the officers of the government, their charges against Caecilian were dismissed. Even their plea that he was — no bishop was shewn to be valueless by their inability to convict Felix of Aptunga of the offence of being a traditor, Nor were they persecuted because of their religious opinions, but for disobedience to the decision of the imperial tribunal to which they themselves had appealed. The action of the government roused the Donatists to fury. There was already in Africa a fanatical body of men who wandered about among the huts of the peasants to excite their passions and inflame their zeal. They were known to the world as Circumcelliones, but styled themselves Agonistae, or Christian champions. During the Donatist troubles these men gathered together a vast number of dis- contented persons, proclaiming a species of communism, and wandering about the country with heavy clubs, called he Circumcelliones. 1. Broglie, L’Eglise et TEmpire, p. 295. _ CH. x11.] CONSTANTINE AND LICINIUS. 295 ‘Israels’, which they used instead of swords, because our Lord had commanded St. Peter, “Put up thy sword.” Africa in the fourth century became distracted by these formidable representatives of the worst form of fana- ticism. ‘They defeated imperial armies, and the Count Ursacius, the persecutor of the Donatists, was slain in an engagement with them. Life became a terror in the country districts, and St. Augustine tells us that the war-cry of the Circumcellions ‘ Praise be to God!’ was more feared than the roar of a lion. The most extraordi- nary zeal for martyrdom was shewn by these sectaries, who often slew each other when their enemies refused to put them to death. In 317 Constantine wrote to the bishops of North Africa urging them to forbear as far as possible from retaliating the injuries they had received at the hands of the Circumcellions. In 321 he granted the Donatists liberty to act according to their own consciences. The government did not attempt again to interfere till the reign of Constans, 338, and Donatism continued to increase in influence throughout Africa till the days of St. Augustine. This vitality can only be accounted for by supposing that, despite the glaring inconsistency of the leaders of the schism (many of whom were themselves tvaditores) in appealing to the secular power, there was a strong party in the Church of Africa opposed on principle to any concordat with the State. The Donatist’s exclamation ‘What has the Emperor to do with the Church?’ was probably a genuine complaint on the part of many adherents of the sect. Like Constantine, his brother-in-law Licinius had overthrown his rival Maximin in 313, and the Roman empire remained divided between the twoconquerors. But a struggle for supremacy was inevitable, though the issue of a contest between two such generals was too doubtful to allow either to precipitate a war. In the first campaign of 314 Licinius was defeated, but not crushed, at Cibalis, and Constantine won a doubtful victory at Mardia. A fresh partition, of the Empire was made, Constantine added Illyricum, Macedonia, Dardania, Greece, and part of Moesia to his dominions. Nearly ten years’ peace Constantine and Licinius. 296 DEATH OF LICINIUS, _—[cu. xm. followed, but the inevitable breach between the two emperors came at last, and this time Licinius appeared as the champion of Paganism.! The war of 323 was so far a religious one.? The cause of Christianity was triumphant throughout. Defeated with great loss at Adrianople, Licinius retreated to Byzantium. Crispus, the son of Constantine, forced the passage of the Hellespont and destroyed the hostile fleet, and Licinius’ hastily-raised Bithynian army sustained a total over- throw at Scutari (Chrysopolis) in Bithynia, near Byzantium. Shortly afterwards the heathen emperor tendered a grovelling submission at Nicomedia. Though spared, ostensibly in deference to the entreaties of Constantia, the jealousy of his conqueror could not suffer Licinius to live. His confinement at Thessalonica Was soon succeeded by accusations of conspiracy and an informal execution.® 1. There were even martyrs under Licinius: Hefele mentions Basil, bishop of Amasia, H/7zst. of the Councils, vol. 1., p. 199. Euseb., Vita Const. U1. 1. 2. Euseb., Vita Comst. 11. 4. 3. St. Jerome (Chron. 2339) says ‘contra jus gentium’. The more courtly Eusebius (Vzta Const. 11. 18) says ‘Then Constantine handed over the hated of God by the law of war to the punishment he deserved.’ CHAPTER XIII. ARIANISM AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA. Tue defeat of Licinius left Constantine master of the Roman world, and face to face with an embarrass- ment compared to which all his previous ecclesiastical difficulties must have seemed trifling. Arianism, be- ginning ciy. 318 at Alexandria as a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, was already increasing with por- tentous speed and was shortly to darken the whole Christian horizon. The bishop of Alexandria had had a dispute with one of his presbyters on a purely speculative question; mutual accusations of heresy had been followed by the excommunication of the pre- sumptuous priest. The subject was one which none but men trained in dialectic subtleties could possibly comprehend, and which to the uneducated seemed to turn on mere hair-splitting definitions. Yet the result was to set house against house and family against family, to fill cities with confusion and the whole empire with disorder, to arouse the most furious passions and to make men at enmity with one another on questions which not one in a thousand could understand. The excitement caused by the Arian disputes seems to us almost incredible, until we realise how much religious questions occupied the mind of mankind in the fourth century. The legislation of Constantine shews that the government was able to exercise the most despotic power, to enforce a system of enormous taxation, and to regulate almost every action of the lives of its subjects. But, to the Christian Church Constantine found it necessary to accord almost complete inde- pendence. In her the liberty and loyalty, which had a: 298 ARIUS AND ALEXANDER. _ [cu. xi, deserted the Roman world, had taken up a new abode. Her leaders bore on their bodies the marks of the Lord Jesus as signs of their constancy in the late persecution, and had proved that neither force nor persuasion could influence them or their followers to yield a point when the Faith was at stake. The question which had been raised divided the Christian world into two parties, and everyone considered himself bound by his religious loyalty to range himself on one side or the other. Our account of the development of the Aleeannee takes science of theology in the second and third of Alexandria, of Centuries has already brought us to the Sabellianism. threshold of the Arian position. We have seen how difficult it was to avoid the Sabellian error of confusing the Son with the Father and at the same time to maintain the doctrine of His distinct hypostasis without dissolving the Unity of God. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in a charge to his clergy insisted strongly on the unity in the Trinity, and made use of expressions perilously near to the language of the dreaded heresy of Sabellius. He thought, as Socrates informs us,! that he was gaining honour by his argument; but one of his listeners was on the watch to catch any error in doctrine that might fall from the bishop. This was Arius, a presbyter of Baucalis, a suburb of Alexandria. ‘The great heresiarch was a tall, grave, ascetic man, whose solemn face and severe manner had made him much respected, especially by the fairer portion of the community. He had been a disciple of the martyr Lucian,? and added to a character for piety a reputation for learning and ability.2 His chief failing seems to have been an overweening vanity, I. idoriudrepov rept rhs aylas rpiddos év rprads wovdda elvar piiocopar éOeoddyer. Socrates, H. £. 1,5. Hefele, Azst. of the Councils, vol. 1., . 243. . 2. Lucian was, like Paulus, a native of Samosata. He was the head of a critical, exegetical and theological school at Antioch. Domnus, who was bishop after the deposition of Paulus, appears to have suspended him from his functions. He was however reconciled to the Church, and died a martyr at Nicomedia, January 7, 312. His pupils were greatly attached to him and to one another. Prolegomena to Athanasius, (Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers,) p. xxviii. 3. Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. 1., part I1., p. 231. TG Sauk = Fs A o 1 hehe es ee SS oS ee. le oS CH. xu] DOCTRINE OF ARIUS. 299 which no doubt prompted him to offer a popular solution of a doctrine which had remained impene- trable even to the minds of Clement and Origen. (1) Starting from the essentially pagan conception of God as a Being absolutely apart from His creation, Arius could not conceive of a mediator being other than a created being, and found that between the Father and the Son there was the impassable gulf which according to his theory must separate the unbegotten, or uncreated, from that which is begotten, or created. The Father was therefore essentially isolated from the Son. (2) The creation of the Son as a second God Arius proceeded to explain by the logical method he had learned in the school of Lucian, and urged that He must bea finite Being. (3) Therefore the Son had no existence before He was begotten. Although He was created before the universe and before all time, there was ‘once’ (woré)—Arius avoided the use of the word ‘ time’—when He was not. (4) Assuming that the Son was a creature, and could not therefore be of the same substance as the uncreated God, Arius proceeds to declare that He was made out of nothing (€& ov« évTwv) ; System of Arius. (5) and he argues that the Son, being of a different essence (ovcia) to the Father, can only be called God in a lower and improper sense. (6) As a creature, this pre-existent Christ was lable to change, and even capable of sin; nothing, as a matter of fact, keeping Him sinless but His own virtue.! What appears to us most repulsive in the scheme of Arius was in the fourth century its great attraction. To our minds there is something almost revolting in the way in which Arius thus coldly applies a shallow system of reasoning to the explanation of so profound a mystery as the relation of the Supreme Being to the Redeemer, We see no attractiveness in the theory which keeps God and man for ever apart, and we are unable to realise the idea of a Christ who is neither God nor Attractiveness of Arianism. 1, Harnack, A7st. Dogma, vol. 1v., Eng. Trans. See my article on Arianism in Hastings’ Dict. of Religion and Ethics, vol. 1. 300 POPULARITY OF ARIANISM. (CH. XII. _ true man.’ It was quite otherwise in the fourth century, especially when after the edict of Milan the heathen were crowding into the Church, bringing many of their old habits of thought with them, and being more anxious to win the favour of the Emperor by professing Christianity, than to acquire the true doctrines of the now privileged religion.2 Arius in the popular judgment had simplified the Faith and brought Christian doctrine into accord with the generally accepted notions of the time. For the great attraction of Christianity for the men of the third and fourth centuries was, not its doctrines of Atonement and Redemption, but its Monotheism. The Faith had given life and reality to the unity of God, which even heathen philosophy had pronounced to be a necessary belief. Nor had the Christian teachers been less influenced by - Neo-Platonism than that philosophy by Christianity. The Church teachers of the fourth century very fre- quently appeal to Philo, to Porphyry, to Plotinus, and other Neo-Platonists, in their belief that they could find in their writings the Christian conception of God. Certainly the Neo-Platonists had constructed a kind of doctrine of the Trinity. The Father was here the év, the aitsov. This use of the term dv may have been the ultimate foundation of the subordinationism, from which the Eastern Church found such difficulty in freeing itself. In isolating God from the world Arius both satisfied the desire for Monotheism, and conformed to the prejudice which feared to unspiritualise the idea of God by bringing Him into contact with creation. At the same time he opposed the Sabellian heresy by giving the Son a distinct hypostasis.4 The heresiarch appears in addition to have possessed the abilities necessary for a successful demagogue. He appealed to the populace by writing verses in the style of a licentious 1. Dorner, of. ctt., p. 240. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, pp. 25, 26. Mr. Gwatkin thinks that Arius, like his followers at a later date, denied the humanity of our Lord. ‘*It was simpler for Arius to unite the Logos to a human body, and to sacrifice the last relics of the original defence of our Lord’s true manhood.” 2. Dorner, of. ctt., p. 202. 3. Dorner, of. c27., p. 204. 4. Gwatkin, p. 27. cH. x111.] ARIANISM A DANGEROUS HERESY. 301 Egyptian poet, Sotades, in which his doctrines were stated in a form easy to be remembered.’ We are told that the Alexandrian mechanics sang the songs of Arius about the Trinity at their work and in the streets. Support of a more respectable character was accorded by the Syrian bishops, of whom the most learned was the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. A footing in the imperial palace itself was secured by the adhesion of the other Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, the spiritual adviser of the empress Constantia, wife of Licinius and sister of Constantine. fey! The tediousness of the Arian con- Sai troversy, with its tangled intrigues and Christianity. hair-splitting definitions, has sometimes hid from the modern historian the real importance of the issue. But the Fathers of the fourth century were not engaged in a mere dispute about words. ‘The principles of Arianism were a serious menace to the well-being of Christianity, and the practical services of Ulfilas? the Gothic missionary, and other excellent men of this school, must not divert our attention from the gravity of their error. If Godisa mere abstraction—the Platonic év—a Being separated -by an impassable gulf from the world, how can He be described as loving man, or how can man’s love be directed to Him? If Christ is a created being, essen- tially different from God, His manifestation only reveals new gradations of being between the human and the divine, nor can it fulfil the purpose of bringing men nearer to God. And if Christ is not indeed God, we cannot offer Him the worship due to God alone. If, moreover, the Logos merely used the human body as a means Of communicating with the world, mankind cannot turn to Him as to one who bore our human nature. Granted that many of the followers of Arius were Christians of the highest type, the logic they had used to prove the relation of the Son to the Father really led back step by step to the Pagan doctrine of 1. Hefele, History of the Counctls, vol. 1., p. 256. Socrates, H.£. 1.9. Athanasius, De Synodis, 11. § 15. 2. For Ulfilas, see C. A. Scott, Udilas, Apostle of the Goths. 302 ARIANISM HARD TO REFUTE, [CH. XIII, an unknown and unknowable God, and to the worship of a demi-god.! 4 In truth this system was, as Dorner points eee adiie out, unsound in that which was regarded tenable. as its strongest point. It was illogical. In isolating God from the world, Arius is logically conducted to the Epicurean doctrine that creation is the result of chance. This Arius does not dare to face; he accordingly gives this chance a seat in the will of God. Yet this will is actuated by caprice, for to what other motive can we assign the creation of the Logos as creator of the world by a God who is essentially divided from both? Again, when he repre- sents the Father as entirely unknowable, and teaches that this attribute is necessary to His exalted nature, he remains confronted by the dilemma: If man cannot know God, and if the Son cannot reveal the Father to us, how can we know that He cannot be known ?? Notwithstanding its unscriptural and grey ry vault, illogical character, no heresy was harder to refute. tO refute than that of Arius. The sub- ordination of the Son had, as we have seen, been taught by such honoured teachers as Origen and the Alexandrian Dionysius; and more recently, Lucian of Antioch, celebrated as a scholar no less than a martyr, had taught a similar doctrine. It seemed only a step from the teaching of these divines to that of Arius, for though they may be honourably acquitted of heresy, their language appeared at times to countenance his conclusions. Moreover the Arians were quite willing 1. Illingworth, Reason and Revelation, chap. vii. Gwatkin, Arians, p. 21 sq. See the second Discourse of Athanasius Against the Arians, ch. xvi., where Prov. viii. 22 is discussed, and the argument is adduced that the worship which man is permitted to pay to Christ is a proof of His divinity. In the third discourse, ch. xxv. § 15, the same writer asks the Arians ‘* Why they do not rank themselves with the Gentiles, .. . for they too worship the creature....” ‘* Arianism” says Dr. Harnack ‘‘is a new doctrine in the Church; it labours under quite as many difficulties as any other earlier Christological doctrine; it is finally, in one important respect, merely Hellenism which is simply tempered by the constant use of Holy Scripture.”—-Aistory of Dogma, vol. IV., p. 41. 2. Dorner, of. cét., p. 239. ‘‘ The Arian Christology is inwardly the most unstable, and dogmatically the most worthless, of all the Christologies to be met with in the history of dogma.” Schultz, Gotthed? Christe, p. 65, quoted by Harnack. mtn CH, XIII. ] THE JHALIA OF ARIUS. 303 to accept the strongest phrases used in the Scriptures on the subject of our Lord’s divinity. They were prepared to admit that He was in the image of God, and the first-born (mpwrtotoxos) of all creation. Provided they might teach that the Saviour’s being was independent of that of the Father, they cared not what honour was paid to Him or what language was used in His praise, as it was always possible to explain it away by some evasion of the true sense of the passage.! ae Alexander, eal by the spread of : 1, these opinions, and finding that a certain SLD 320 Colluthus had made his forbearance to- wards Arius the excuse for a schism, summoned a council to meet at Alexandria, and ex- communicated the heresiarch and his two followers, the bishops Theonas and Secundus. In order to refute the new heresy, he put forth an encyclical letter signed by his clergy, among whose signatures we find the name of his deacon Athanasius, in which he terms the Arians Exucontians (ot é& ov« dvrwyv).2 Arius continued for some considerable time to hold assemblies in Alexandria, but was at last compelled to leave that city, and went first to Palestine and afterwards to his friend Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia. From Nicomedia Arius wrote to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium, a long letter in which he set forth his opinions in a sort of creed ;* and also published his Thalia or Spivitual Banquet in verse for the use of the common people. The troubles in the East caused by the quarrel between Licinius and Constantine were to the advantage of Arius, who after being acquitted of heresy at a synod held by Eusebius, returned to Alexandria. Badetavilite’s Such then was the state of affairs letters to Arius when Constantine became master of the pee erent Rast, _ Although he ‘could have had no special interest in the theological question, the ‘1. Athanasius, First Discourse against the Arians. In ch. xiii. the four favourite Scriptural passages used by the Arians in controversy are enumerated: Prov. viii. 22 (Lxx), Heb. i. 4, iii. 2, Acts il. 36. 2. Theodoret, - 7.2.1. 4. Hefele, Héstory of the Councils, vol. 1, - 252. 2 eo Hefele, of. ctt., p. 256, Theodoret, 1. 4. Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. Xvi. Ce 304 REPRESENTATIVES AT NICAEA. [CH. XIII. Emperor found it impossible to ignore it, for ex- perience had taught him what disturbances in Egypt meant.! Accordingly Constantine sent Hosius of Cor- dova with letters to Alexander and Arius, exhorting them to peace, and blaming them for having presumed to disturb the Church by the discussion of so high a theme. But it was too late for mediation, and Constantine was impelled to measures of more drastic character. He determined to restore peace to the Church by assembling a General Council. It is not improbable that Hosius was Phe une of the first to suggest to Constantine the June, A.D. 325. advisability of thus settling the disputed question of the true place of the Son in the Godhead. The project, however, was a dramatic illustration of the new personal status of the Emperor.’ In Constantine’s mind the notion of one Church and one Empire had in all probability been long strengthening, and the very name oecumenical, applied to this and other councils, proves that it was considered as representing the Roman empire. But at the great Council of Nicaea bishops from countries which lay beyond the imperial frontier were invited to be present. Persia and Scythia sent representatives,* as well as the provinces acknow- ledging the rule of Constantine. The disinclination of the Western mind for transcendental theology is perhaps ~ illustrated by the fact that the majority of the bishops were Orientals. The provinces of the West were indeed very inadequately represented. The Roman Silvester sent to the Council two presbyters, Victor and Vincentius; and Hosius of Cordova, the Emperor’s friend and spiritual adviser, Caecilian of Carthage, whose election as bishop had caused the Donatist schism, and three other bishops, were the only other Westerns present,® 1. Gwatkin, of. cztt., p. 33. 2. Socrates, I. 7. The historian describes the imperial letter as “wondrous and full of wisdom”. Cardinal Newman, on the other hand, censures the presumption of an unbaptized person like Constantine taking part in a controversy on a purely theological question. Newman, Arians, p. 243 foll. . ; 3. Gwatkin, Arzans, p. 36. 4. Eusebius, Vita Const. 111., ¢€. 7. 5. Hefele, Hestory of the Councils, vol. 1., p. 271. — . 3 : q Bt. 4 cH. xu] OPENING OF THE COUNCIL “305 though Constantine had done all that was possible to afford facilities for travelling by placing the public conveyances at the disposal of the Church’s delegates.! The choice of Nicaea as a place of meeting was also favourable to a large concourse of bishops. Situated upon the shores of Lake Ascanius, which is joined to the Propontis by a navigable river, Nicaea was very easy to reach from all the provinces, especially from Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece and Thrace. The quick eye for locality which is shewn in Constantine’s choice of Byzantium for the site of his capital, is also exhibited in his fixing upon Nicaea as the meeting place for his great council. The name may also have influenced the Emperor as being of good omen for the success of his plans.’ The number of bishops present was, of tee daseei, according to Eusebius, more than two hundred and fifty. Other accounts give three hundred and eighteen, and dwell on the fact that this number corresponds with that of Abraham’s servants when he delivered Lot. Athanasius, who like Eusebius was an eye-witness, says that there were three hundred bishops at Nicaea.4 As the number must have varied during its sitting, and perhaps not all reached the locality ere the opening of the Council, it is easy to reconcile these discrepancies.’ Many of those present had suffered in the Diocletian persecution. Both at the time and afterwards, it was as an assemblage of confessors and martyrs, no less than as an Ecumenical Council, that this conclave claimed authority. A large number of dialecticians were present at Nicaea, some of whom had been brought by the bishops to assist them in their 1. Eusebius, Vita Const. I11., c. 6. 2. Hefele, p. 270. Nicaea was only twenty miles from Nicomedia, which at this time was the capital of the Eastern part of the Empire. Stanley, Zastern Church, Lect. ul. Eusebius, Vita Const. 111. 6: wéds edmrpérovea 7H ouvddm vixns émravuuos. The reason given in the probably spurious letter summoning the Council is the ‘salubrity of the air of Nicaea’. . Gen. xiv. 14. Athanasius, De Decretis, c. ii. Towards the end of his life Athanasius accepted the mystical number 318. Letter of the Bishops of Eevpt etc. to those of Africa. iS vilietele, sp. 271. 6. Stanley’s Hastern Church, Lect. Ul. 306 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA, __ [cu. x11. debates, whilst others had doubtless been attracted to the Council simply by curiosity. A very characteristic story is told by Socrates, an historian of the fifth century. Whilst the Council was assembling, the dia- lecticians raised a discussion in which many were joining from mere love of argument, when suddenly a layman, who had been a confessor during the persecution, stepped forward and said abruptly, “Christ and His Apostles did not give us the art of logic or vain deceit, but naked truth to be guarded by faith and good works.” ‘This bold rebuke called forth universal approval, and gave a higher tone to all subsequent discussion.! Rufinus and Sozomen give a more dramatic turn to the story by making a philosopher, by name Eulogius, refute every Christian disputant, till an aged Christian priest or bishop, whom later tradition identifies with Spiridion of Cyprus, stepped forward and declared the Christian Faith to the philosopher. Unable to withstand the spirit with which the old man spoke, Eulogius forthwith submitted to baptism.? sige The important question of the heresy of Co Nine, Arius was the first subject which occupied the Council after the arrival of Constantine. The bishops had begun by presenting to the Emperor numerous petitions stating their grievances against one another; but Constantine gathered these together and — committed them to the flames, that the world might not know that Christian bishops had any differences among themselves. After this well-timed rebuke the real business of the Council began. It speedily became manifest that there were three ecclesiastical parties present. The extreme sections were represented by Arius and by Marcellus of Ancyra respectively. Pro- minent on the side of Marcellus was a worthier exponent of orthodoxy, Athanasius, the deacon whom Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, had brought to the Council. Marcellus was, however, a dangerous friend, and his subsequent language led to his being some years later not unjustly pronounced a heretic. Arius’ warmest 1. Socrates, H. #.1. 8. Stanley, Hastern Church, Lect. m1. 2. Stanley (Eastern Church, Lect. 111.) tells the story trom Rue finus i. 3, Soz. i. 18, very graphically. CH. XIII.) EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA- 307 supporters were the bishops Theonas, Secundus, and the powerful Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was destined to do him yeoman’s service in after days. Between these two extremes was the large majority of the Council, who disliked innovation and, for the most part, were unable to perceive the exact point of the controversy. The position of these men is illustrated by the acute remark of the historian Socrates, who regarded the affairs of the Church with the eye of a layman and a lawyer, and who loved the Christian Faith more than the Christian clergy. Speaking of a later phase of the Arian con- troversy, he says, ““ what took place resembled a fight in the dark, no man knew whether he struck at friend or foe.”? A fear of heresy on the one hand, and of innovation on the other, made them waverers; yet it was by the vote of such as these that the matter had to be decided. Ensebius of Caesarea. It is difficult in describing the state of parties at Nicaea to give Eusebius of Caesarea a place in any one of them. His name-sake of Nicomedia says that he shewed great zeal on behalf of the Arian doctrine before the meeting of the Council.2 This statement, however, must be accepted with caution, as the Arians were most anxious to claim the alliance of the most learned bishop in the world, who was also the friend and counsellor of Constantine. It seems more probable that Eusebius’ conduct was prompted by a sincere desire for peace, a dislike of rigid tests of orthodoxy, and a wish to see Arius treated fairly. He appears to have been no zealot: rather was he one who could appreciate the courage which inspired others to court the glories of martyrdom, without any burning desire to suffer in his own person. At a later time Eusebius was taunted with having escaped martyrdom by sacrificing. Bishop Lightfoot, however, reasonably argues that it is hardly likely that he would have been unanimously elected bishop of Caesarea at the close of the persecution, had 1. Socr., H. Z.1. 23; see Gwatkin, p. 61. vuxrowaylas re oddév dmeixe Ta yivdueva o06e yap addAjAous Edalvovro vooivres, dp’ Gv adArjrovs Bracdnpuetv vredduBSavor. 2. Theod., A. £1 5. U2 308 CHRISTOLOGY OF EUSEBIUS. [CH, XIII. he been guilty of apostasy. But though this accusation, made by Potammon at the synod of Tyre, was in all probability without good grounds, Eusebius was not the man to be martyred.’ Like our own Archbishop Parker, the erudite bishop of Caesarea probably had the skill to keep himself tolerably safe during the days of persecution, when men of more zeal but less discretion suffered death or at least torture.2 His behaviour at Nicaea goes far to countenance this view. Let it be added that candour and liberality were in Eusebius joined with wide learning, and his moderate policy will not appear devoid of a moral justification. If he lacked the virtues which make a man a martyr or confessor, he was without those bitter prejudices which have marred so many otherwise saintly characters. te) As Eusebius gave a creed to the of oats. Council, the phraseology of which, in spite of a very material alteration, became the basis of the famous Creed of Nicaea, his teaching on the subject of the Trinity deserves careful attention. He considers that the attributes of God can be predicated sensu eminenti only of the Father, who is indeed the To dv. He alone is the representative of the muovapyia. If another, the Son for example, were co-eternal with the Father we should have two eternals, and thus we should drift back into Polytheism. In order that He might create the world, the Father sent the Son, Who, after abiding in Him (évdov pévav év hovydtovrs TO [Iarpi), became an hypostasis when He went forth from God. Yet He, as Son and Word of the Father, is Himself endowed with all divine attributes.’ Eusebius goes farther than Origen in glorifying the Son, by admitting that He is the Very Word, the Very Wisdom, and even the Very God (avroGeos). As He was begotten before all the aeons, the Son is dvapyos, that is without beginning in time, for He was begotten out of time. By this means Eusebius avoided the objectionable language of Arius, and was able to deny that he had 1. Athanasius, Afo/. contra Arianos, § 8. Epiphanius, Haer. 68. 7. 2. Smith and Wace’s Dictéonary of Christian Biography, vol. 1.5 Pegat 6. 3. He is the rAjpwua Oeod éx warpixs OedryTos. «| 43Ety* K111. ] ATHANASIUS, 309 said of the Son #v mote éte ovx« jv, and to say that He was ever with the Father, though he does not use the term co-eternal (cuvaidios).1 In its phraseology Eusebius’ doctrine is inoffensive and represents the popular belief of his day. But if pressed to a logical conclusion, the result is Arianism, though he and others were unwilling to admit the extreme views of that heresy. Eusebius is interesting to us as the representative of the majority of Christians whose opinions were unformed, and who consequently tried to occupy a middle position in the controversy, being alternately attracted and repelled by orthodoxy and Arianism. In the controversies which followed Nicaea these formed the bulk of the Semi-Arian party. ites Men like Eusebius of Caesarea could of Athanasius, “Ot do more than postpone the question. The symbol most agreeable to this party would be a creed which would neither offend nor fully satisfy anybody, but would leave the Arian dispute much as it had been before. Arius and his friends knew perfectly what they wanted, and were not the men to be crushed by a majority, however large, which did not know its own mind. But on the other side there was also one man who was fully determined on his course of action,—Athanasius, the Alexandrian deacon. ‘Though not yet thirty years of age, Athanasius had taken an active part in the controversy, and had already published two treatises on the subject.?, Despite his comparatively humble rank in the Church, he was listened to with profound attention, possibly as the mouthpiece of his bishop, Alexander. A cursory glance at his theological system, as it is found in the treatises he wrote before A.D. 325, will shew how remote was the position of Athanasius from the cold definitions of Arius and the vague uncertainties of Eusebius. Like Arius, Athanasius distinguishes clearly between God and the World; but unlike him, he will not believe in the isolation of the 1. Dorner, of. ctt., vol. I1., pp. 219—224. Eusebius’ views are to be read in his treatise Adv. Marcellum. 2. The Adyos ea@’"EAXnvas and the Ilepl rijs évavOpwrjoews Tod Né-you Tov Geod. ‘** De Incarnatione Verbi,’—they form, in reality, two parts of a single work. 310 THEOLOGY OF ATHANASIUS. [cH. x1. Creator, God is in the World as the immanent principle of its harmony. When He saw man deprived by sin of his former spiritual union, the Father was touched with compassion ;—it appealed to His pity (€Eexadéoato). But God could not deny Himself by accepting man’s submission without atonement for his sin. Thus it was that the Logos, who had created man out of nothing, intervened to save man by suffering in his stead. Because the Logos took our nature upon Him, our nature possesses Him, He belongs to us; we constitute the body of which He is the Head. And _ being thus united to men, the Logos unites us to the Father, for He is the image of the Father, pre-existent, yet ever resting in God. Here we have a true view of God, His Word, the universe, and man. A Father who is a real Father, loving mankind, grieving over their estrangement from Him, and providing a means for their salvation. A real Son, the Word of the Father, ever with Him and yet with His own hypostasis. A universe, the harmony of which is due to the presence of God, of. which it can be said ‘The Lord has touched its every part.”! Mankind, alienated from God yet restored to Him by His incarnate Word, who became man that we might be made God.? Such then was the Christian system as it appeared to Athanasius. It seemed indispensable to a proper representation of the unity of the Godhead, that there should be left no possibility of a believer accepting the dangerous ex- . planation of Arius.® | ata ae The learning, eloquence, and the roof Cacsarea, court favour enjoyed by Eusebius gave him great weight at the Council. He had pronounced the inaugural address of the Council to the Emperor, and it was his ambition to be allowed to give a creed to the Church. Accordingly, after the creed of Arius had been read and torn in pieces by the indignant bishops, he produced a symbol, which he I. mavra yap rhs krloews uépwr Haro 6 Oeds. 2. 0 dA\dyos évnvOpwrnoer Iva Huels OeomorjOwper. 3. Dorner, op. czt., vol. 11., pp. 249—259. Page 251 is especially worthy of notice. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, pp. 349 ff. Theodoret, A. Z. 1. 7, ev0éws dvéppntay dmavres, voov Kat KLBOndov dévoundoarres. { a g a 4 1 CH. X11} CREED PROPOSED BY EUSEBIUS. 311 averred had been long in use in his own church of Caesarea. His exact words are: “As we received from the bishops who were before us, both when we were catechized and when we received baptism (7é Aovtpév), and according to what we have learnt from the Holy Scriptures, and as we have believed and been in the habit of teaching both in our own presbyterate and In our episcopate. Thus believing, we lay this statement of our faith before you.” It was in many ways satisfactory. It harmonized with Apostolic tradi- tion in attributing the highest honours to the Second Person of the Trinity, and it was at the same time free from all suspicion of the dreaded heresy of Sabellius. It was, moreover, one which everybody could sign, if not ex animo, at least without doing violence to his conscience. But this was exactly what Alexander and his friends did not want; they had come to the Council, not to make an agreement between all parties, but to sift the matter thoroughly. Either Arius was right or he was wrong. No compromise was possible. The Council had no hesitation in pronouncing an unqualified condemnation of the views of Arius; not twenty mem- bers were found to vote for an Arianizing creed proposed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius soon found himself with only five supporters. It was at this juncture that Eusebius of Caesarea brought forth his creed.’ It was as follows :— We believe in One God, Father, all-Sovereign, Creator of all things whatsoever, both visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, only-begotten Son, the First-born of all creation, begotten of God the Father before all the ages, by Whom also all things came into being, Who became flesh for our salvation, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Ghost. (We believe) that Each of these is 1. The use of the word Creed must not mislead the reader. The Council of Nicaea did not intend to issue a baptismal formula, but a universal test of orthodoxy to be signed by bishops upon occasion. The Nicene Creed is never called o¥uBorov (except at the Council of Laodicaea, A.D. 363), but always mioris or ud@nua, till its conversion into a baptismal profession in the fifth century. Gwatkin, Studzes of Artanism, p. 37. 312 THE HOMOOUSION, (CH. x11 and subsists: the Father truly as Father, the Son tea as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy: Ghost ; as our Lord also says when He sends His disciples to preach: Go and make all nations disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.? This creed, though perfectly inoffensive, was un- satisfactory to Alexander and the opponents of the teaching of Arius, since it left the two points at issue practically untouched. After his denial of our Lord’s union with the Father, it was no longer possible to be content with the acknowledgment that the Second Person of the Trinity was “born before all the ages” (wpo TwavTwv TOV aiovev) or that He was “ First-born of all creation”, since his followers could accept these expressions and still teach that the Logos was not eternally begotten. In like manner they were prepared to accept the expression Geds €x Oeod, for all things are of God, and the Son is, in a sense, God. A further objection to the proposed’ creed was the studiously ambiguous expression, which left the whole doctrine of the Incarnation in uncertainty.” The creed of Eusebius was however The Creed of “accepted as the basis of the new symbol, The Homoousion. but in an amended form. ‘There was only one way of making Arianism impossible, and that was to use a word, which was not only un- scriptural, but which was in bad repute as having been used by the heretics Valentinus and Paul of Samosata. The Son must be declared to be of one substance or essence (ooovcvos) with the Father, in order to exclude Arius from the Church. The courage of the orthodox party in proposing to make use of such an expression was very great. According to Irenaeus it had been used by the Valentinians, and it had gained an evil notoriety in the East in the disputes about Paul of Samosata. The Arians could taunt their opponents with having borrowed the word from the armoury of heresy. The I. Hefele, pp. 288, 289. The creed is found in Eusebius’ letter to his church, given by Athanasius in his De Decr. Syn. Nic., by Theodoret, Hl. &. 1. 12, and Socrates, A. #. 1. 8. Burn, Ltroduction to the Creeds, p. 79. 2. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 39. CH. XIII] AMENDMENTS ADOPTED. : 313 orthodox party, however, resolved to face the reproach of having used an heretical word as a means of over- throwing error. The Homdousion left no room for Arian- ism. If our Lord was declared to be of one substance with the Father, the whole theory of Arius, that He was of a lower nature, and capable of change and even of sin, entirely fell to the ground. According to Eusebius, Constantine wanted the creed already proposed to be accepted with the word opmoovc.os inserted: but the majority of the Council, by the advice of Hosius of Cordova, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, and the other anti-Origenist bishops of the East,! de- cided to make six important alterations in the creed before them. ‘They were, according to Prof. Gwatkin, as follows :— 1. In the words, “tov tév ardytwy opaTav te Kal dopatwv TontHy, tavtov (all things) was substituted for tov datavtwy (all things whatsoever), to exclude the creation of the Son and Spirit2. This shews how carefully the Council did its work. 1. See Bishop Bull, Defence of the Nicene Creed, p. 70 foll.3 on p. 99 Bishop Bull quotes Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam, c. 8: ‘‘Non ideo non utitur et veritas vocabulo, quia et haeresis potius ex veritate accepit, quod ad mendacium suum strueret.” See Nicene and Fost-Nicene Fathers, Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. xvii. It is certain that Athanasius was not the author of the word duooto.or. It is noticeable that even in his later writings he avoids using it, and in his Dzscourses against the Arians it only occurs three or four times. Athanasius, JVicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 303. The word opoovoros means ‘that which partakes of the same ovgia, a word first used by Aristotle to express that which is self-existent (ywpiordv). The compound word dootvocos was first used by the Gnostic Valentinian to express the homogeneity of the two factors in the fundamental dualism of the universe. It is used in a some- what similar sense in the Clementine Homilies, xx. 7. The term ovola was to Christian theologians liable to be misleading, because Origen had adopted the Platonic expression that ‘God is beyond all essence (ovclas)’, thus connecting the word with the idea of something material. Thus the Origenist bishop of the East, in pronouncing against Paul of Samosata, repudiated the term duooveros with the concurrence of Dionysius of Rome, who a few years before had successfully pressed it as a test word on his name-sake of Alexandria. The adoption of this word was therefore naturally repugnant to many, and it was not for many years, and only after the Cappa- docian fathers had distinguished between ovcla and vmicracrs, that the Symbol of Nicaea found universal acceptation. See the Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. xxxi f.” : 2. See Harnack, Héstory of Dogma, vol. Iv., p. 54, and especially the note on p. 56. Baker, Christian Doctrine, p. 171 n. 314 THE NICENE CREED. — (cH. x11, 2. The Sonship of the Second Person was thrown to the front, and all subsequent clauses referred to the Son instead of to the Logos. 3. The words touréotw é« ths ovcias tov Ilarpos were added to explain the word povoyevns. 4. Zoyy ee Cwons..... TpwrotoKov Twacns KTicEws became Qeov adrnOivov éx Ocov adrnOwod, yevvnbévta ov momlévta, opoovotov tS IIatpi. The two participles which the Arians had confused were thus carefully distinguished. 5. To capxwfevta was added xal évavOpwmrycavta. 6. An anathema was added. The creed of the Council was therefore set forth in the following terms :— | IIvotevomev eis Eva Ocdov Tlatépa mavtoxpdropa, TAVTWV OpaTav Te Kal aopaTwY ToLNnTHDY. Kai eis &va xvptov, "Incodtv Xpiotov, tov vidv tov cod, yevvnbévta ex tod Ilarpos povoyevn—rtovtéotw ék THs ovcias tov Ilatpos—Oecdv éx Oeov, Pas éx Pwros, Ocdv adrnOivov ex Oeov adrnOwvod, yevvnlevta ov troumlevta, € A : nan opoovatov To Ilatpi, dv ob Ta TavTa éyeveTo, TA TE EV TH oupav® Kal Ta év TH yy Tov Ov Huds Tovs avOpwTrous Kal pav@ Kal Ta EV TH YH ) ne $ p SK Sua THv Huetépay awtnpiav KateNOovta, Kal capxwOerta, > / t it. 2 s a , is 2 évavOpwrncavta, TaQovta, Kal avactavta TH TpiTH HuLEpa, Rd t 2 \ ? U > a a x avehOovta eis Tovs ovpavos, épyouevoy Kpivar Cavtas Kai VEKPOUS. Kai eis ro IIvedpa 16 “Ariov. ® > Tovs 5€ Aéyortas, HY Tote OTE OVK HV, } OVK HY ply ig] Led b) bla > / a ? e / ¢€ , yevunOjvat, ) €& ove dvTav éyéveTo, 7 EF ETépas UTOTTATEWS n ovcias hacKovtas elval, ) KTLTTOY 1 TpeTTOV 7) adAot- I. Gwatkin, Studies of Artanism, pp. 41, 42. See Hort’s Two Dissertations, p. 138. Bethune-Baker, Jtroduction to Early Christian Doctrine, p. 168. CH. X11.) ARJUS AND OTHERS BANISHED, 315 \ ‘ ey a w@tov tov Liov tov Oeod, rovtovs avabeuatifer KaOorKy Kat atooToNiKy éxxAnoia? Constantine after some deliberation Cee tan he agreed to this creed, and the majority others banished. Of the Council subscribed to it without hesitation, Eusebius of Caesarea objected to the anathema; he took a day to consider whether he should sign at all, and referred the matter to the Emperor. Constantine (who apparently understood the Greek language imperfectly)? was able to assure the greatest scholar of his day that owoovctos involved no such material unity in the Persons of the Godhead as Eusebius feared might be deduced from it.2 Fortified by this weighty opinion, Eusebius signed the creed, and wrote to his congregation in Palestine to explain why he had done so. The letter does no honour to the character of Eusebius, who gives the language of the Arians a meaning which he must have known they did not intend* His name-sake of Nicomedia also subscribed to the creed, but his action brought him little benefit, as he was banished within the year. Arius was left with only five supporters, the bishops Theonas and Secundus, the presbyter Saras, the deacon Euzoius, and the reader Achillas. They were all banished to Galatia or to Illyricum; Arius remaining some six years in the last-named province, where he may perchance have instructed Ursacius and Valens, who in after days championed his doctrines.’ But the 1. The theological student will do well to commit, if possible, this creed to memory, especially the anathema, which gives in a brief form the views held by Arius. The words underlined are in the Eusebian creed. Burn, of. ctt., p. 79. 2. Eusebius says that though Constantine addressed the Council in Latin he also spoke Greek, ‘E\Anvitwy ri guvp ore wndé radrys duals elxev, but see Valesius’ note on Socrates I. 14. 3. See Stanley, Zastern Church, Lect. Iv: 4. Hefele, Counczls, vol. 1., p. 291. The letter of Eusebius is found in the De Decr. Syn. Nic. Eusebius explains the words mpiv -yervnOjvat ovx 4v as referring to our Lord’s Incarnation. Neither the Arians nor the orthodox understood the words in this sense. Robertson, Athanasius, . Xvili. : 5. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Prolegomena to Athanasius, Pp. Xxxiv. 316 ARIAN CONTROVERSY. ___ [CH. XIIL. exiles do not seem to have hastened from Nicaea, as the name of Secundus appears among the signatories of the Council.’ Nevertheless, the triumph of the Homdousion was more apparent than real. The vast majority of the bishops failed to comprehend the actual meaning of the point at issue. Constantine pressed them to accept the creed because he hoped that it would secure the peace of the Church; and the Arianizing party allowed the Homdousion to be acknowledged, in the hope that they could explain it away. The contest only began with the Council of Nicaea. Alexander, Eustathius, and Athanasius had won a great victory, but the war was not ended.? 7 Before proceeding with the history of The Arian the Council it may be well to pursue Controversy tothe the Arian controversy to the death of Constantine, Constantine. Constantine may in all probability have felt that in securing a practically unanimous assent to the Creed of Nicaea he had silenced controversy, and that henceforward the Christians would live in concord. The failure of the Synod of Arles to heal the Donatist schism gave indeed but a doubtful omen as to the success of the Council of Nicaea, still he may have regarded the practical unanimity with which the creed was accepted — as an earnest of peace. He was destined to be speedily undeceived. The Arianizing party began to intrigue as soon as the Council closed. By a.p. 330 they felt themselves strong enough to attack Eustathius, bishop of Antioch. How his enemies managed to secure his deposition is not very certain. Various charges are suggested by the historians.2 In the meantime Eusebius of Nicomedia had returned from exile, and was once 1. Stanley, Zastern Church, Lect. Iv. 2. Harnack, Azstory of Dogma, vol. IV., p. 59. 3. -Among them one of fornication. See Gwatkin, p. 74, note. Dean Milman says ‘* The unseemly practice of bringing forward women of bad character to charge men of high station in the Church... , formerly em- ployed to calumniate the Christians, was adopted by the reckless hostility of Christian faction.” Eustathius lived till 358. He was deposed with the full consent of the civil power, perhaps on account of his having been charged with defaming Helena. Athanasius, Wistoria Arianorum, C 4. CH. xI1.] ATHANASIUS BANISHED, 317 more in favour with the Emperor. The time seemed to have arrived when the Arians would be strong enough to strike at their chief opponent, Athanasius, now bishop (or, as he was generally styled, pope) of Alexandria. But this required some caution. Marcellus of Ancyra, whose anti-Arian opinions verged on Sabellianism, was first attacked and condemned as a heretic. ‘The next step was to prejudice the Emperor against Athanasius. He was accused of extortion and of magic; a darker insinuation—the murder of Arsenius, a Meletian bishop— was also added. At the Synod of Tyre, a.p. 335, Athanasius was formally charged with the murder of Arsenius, who was hidden by the bishop’s enemies and only discovered by him with great difficulty. At the synod, however, the hand of a dead man was produced as evidence, but Athanasius presented Arsenius alive and with both his hands.!_ He then, seeing the impossibility of obtaining justice from such a tribunal, hastened to Constantinople and presented himself before the Em- peror to demand a fair trial. His accusers were sum- moned, and this time made a charge of high treason against Athanasius; they declared that he had detained the Alexandrian corn ships, which supphed Constan- tinople with provisions.2, The very whisper of such an accusation was enough to arouse the suspicion of the Emperor, and Athanasius was banished to Treves, A.D. 336. The triumph of his opponents was complete: Arius wrote to Constantine a confession of his faith, which eluded the points at issue, but satisfied the Emperor,’ and the Emperor ordered him to be restored to the Church in Constantinople. To the great joy of the orthodox, he died on the very day appointed for his restoration.‘ 1. Athanasius, . eae 7 Se , ae ee ie 5 a CH. XIII.] DONATION ad CONSTANTINE, 321 to the Capitol in eheitotation of the deliverance of Rome by Castor and Pollux, who were supposed to have fought for Rome and to have brought the news of the victory to the city. The people were infuriated at the Emperor's contemptuous attitude towards their pageant, and a riot ensued. The popularity of Crispus, the eldest son of Con- stantine, excited the jealousy of his father, who perceived that the people were transferring their affections to the young Caesar. Crispus was sent under a strong guard to Pola in Istria, and there made away with. The Caesar Licinius, son of Constantine’s sister and of his late rival, was also executed. Helena, the mother of Constantine, furious at the murder of her favourite grandson, accused the Empress Fausta of having caused the Emperor to put Crispus to death on a false charge. Later writers say that Fausta was guilty of adultery. At any rate, according to Zosimus’ account, it appears that she was put to death by being suffocated in a bath. Great uncertainty overhangs these dark transactions, the truth respecting which will perhaps never be known.’ After the terrible scenes enacted in the palace, Constantine determined never to return to Rome. Before, however, he left the Imperial City, legend ascribes to him an action which, though without any foundation in fact, has left a more permanent impression on the Western Church than any historical event in his reign. It is said that he established the temporal dominion of the Papacy, by his famous donation to Silvester, bishop of Rome. The legend (which cannot be traced back to a period anterior to the Iconoclastic controversy in the eighth century) relates that Constantine, after cruelly persecuting the Christians and driving Silvester into exile, was smitten with leprosy. ‘The Pope restored Constantine to health, and, in gratitude, the Emperor bestowed on him the sovereignty of the whole of Italy and of the West. The Donation of Constantine. I. Zosimus, II. 29. 2. Zosimus, according to Gibbon, ch. xviii., *‘may be considered our original.” In thé opinion of that historian he is wrong about the death of Fausta. 3. Gibbon, ch. xlix. ; Milman, Hsstory of Latin Christianity, vol. ly p. 72, and note. x 322 CONSTANTINE’S CONVERSION, _ [cH. XII. This wonderful story lived—such is the vitality of 4 falsehood—for no less than seven centuries. Dante, a : strong supporter of imperialism, believed it, and blames Constantine for enriching the Pope in such a way. The honour of refuting this impudent fiction belongs to Laurentius Valla, a scholar of the fifteenth century. It is to the credit of the clerical authorities of Rome that Valla was reconciled to the Church and buried (strangely enough) in the precincts of the Lateran Palace, which was perhaps the actual donation of Con- stantine to the Roman bishop.!' A curious contrast is presented by the pagan story of Constantine’s conversion at this time. According to one version, Constantine, stricken with remorse, sought purification at the hands of the Roman Flamens, but this was refused by them on the ground that their religion knew of no expiation for such crimes as his. According to another version, it was from the philosopher Sopater that he sought con-. solation, but without success ;? however, an Egyptian magician from Spain (Hosius, bishop of Cordova), who had much influence with the ladies of the imperial court, told Constantine that in the Christian Church there were mysteries which could purify from every sin : accordingly the Emperor became a Christian. If we compare these two widely different narratives — we Shall find that in one detail they agree, namely, that Constantine became a Christian after the execution of Crispus. But it is precisely at this point that they appear most unhistorical. Constantine was a patron of the Christian Church and a worshipper of the Christians’ God twelve years previously; and he was not baptized till he was on his death bed, eleven years afterwards. Therefore neither his formal conversion — nor his baptism had taken place at the time of his son’s death. It is nevertheless possible that the harmony of the two accounts indicates some quickening of Con- stantine’s religious convictions in view of the crimes 1. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. XI11., ch. vi. Valla died Aug. 1457. He was a Canon of St. John Lateran. 2. Zosinius, Il. 29, p. 104, edn. Oxon. 1679. Sozomen (I. 5) says that, even if Constantine had asked the advice of Sopater, that philosopher could not have forgotten that Hercules found expiation at Athens for crimes similar to those of the Emperor. CH. xuL] CONSTANTINE’S REMORSE. 323 recorded above. We must not forget that in that age of transition such men as Constantine really fluctuated between Christianity and paganism. At Nicaea, in the society of bishops and divines, the Emperor must have felt himself a believer. Transported to Rome, in the midst of the pagan surroundings of the stronghold of the ancient faith, Constantine may have felt drawn towards the heathen rites. The unjust execution of his distinguished son, and the terrible retribution Fausta’s folly compelled him to inflict upon her, naturally aroused feelings of profound sorrow and re- morse. Constantine may have turned to philosophy in the person of Sopater, or for the consolation of religion to the Flamens. He found them alike unable to quiet the voice of an accusing conscience, and at last discovered by his own spiritual experience that Christ alone was the source of pardon. That Con- stantine was not immediately baptized need not surprise us, if we may believe that he was at least so far convinced as to become a Christian catechumen.} The legend of the Donation almost rises to the dignity of an allegory. Constantine probably made over to Silvester Fausta’s palace of the Lateran. Shortly after- wards he left Rome. Thus he was in effect the first to lay the foundation of the papal supremacy in the West. Once the imperial seat was removed from Rome, the popes were free to give to the Eternal City spiritual power destined to prove more than a compensation for that of which she had been deprived by the transference of the seat of empire to the East. The year following the departure of The Holy aye Constantine from Rome witnessed the restoration of Jerusalem to its position of a Holy City. For two centuries it had borne the name of Aelia Capitolina, and a temple of Venus had stood on the site of the Jewish Temple. The Emperor’s mother, Helena, at the persuasion of her son, had em- braced Christianity. She visited Palestine, and was con- ducted to the places which are sanctified to Christians as the scenes of the work of our Redemption. She 1. Constantine, however, was only formally admitted to the catechue menate just before his baptism. x2 324. THE INVENTION OF THE CROSS, [cu. xin. was supplied with ample funds by Constantine, and erected two churches, one marking the spot from which our Saviour ascended, another at Bethlehem. A third church was afterwards built over the cave of the Resur- rection by Constantine himself. Thus much we gather from the conternporary account of Eusebius.1 From the letter of Constantine to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, given by the same historian, we may infer that Helena made some discovery of the instruments of our Lord’s Passion. The allusion is however obscure. We must wait seventy years to read in a Western writer the developed account of the ‘Invention of the Cross’. According to Rufinus three crosses were discovered, and an inscription, detached from them, bearing Pilate’s words, ‘This is the king of the Jews.’ To test the crosses a sick lady was placed on each, and was healed when put upon the True Cross. The historians all repeat this statement, and add that Constantine, receiving two of the nails used at the Crucifixion as a present from Helena, had one worked into the bit of his bridle, and the other placed in his crown or helmet. This latter incident has a real significance as an illustration of Constantine’s position. His Christi- anity appears in his receiving the nails that pierced Christ with reverence, his pagan ignorance in the use he made of them.? The closing years of the reign of costa gee’ Constantine were occupied by the founda- tion of the New Rome which bears his name. It was to the genius of this Emperor, in fixing 1. Euseb., Vita Const. 111. 26—42. 2. Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. v1. Robertson, Hizst. of the Christian Church, vol. 1., p. 267. Socrates, 1. 9. Sozomen, Il. fr. Rufinus, 1. 7—8. The Dictzonary of Christian Biography (vol. U1. p. 882 4) gives the evidence for the story very clearly. (1) A.D. 333, a Burgundian pilgrim says nothing of Helena, and mentions only the churches on Olivet and at Bethlehem. (2) Eusebius gives the story as stated in the text. (3) Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 346, speaks of the wood of the True Cross ; (4) Chrysostom, A.D. 387, doesthe same. (5) Sulpicius Severus, A.D. 395, says that Helena built ¢4ree churches, one on the scene of the Passion. Three. crosses were discovered, and the right ome ascertained by the miraculous raising of a dead body. (6) Ambrose, A.D. 395, says three crosses were discovered, one bearing the inscription. (7) Rufinus, A.D. 400, tells the generally received story. CH. XIII. ] CONSTANTINOPLE, 325 his capital on the Bosphorus, that the Eastern Roman Empire owed that wonderful vitality which enabled it to survive sO many almost unparalleled calamities and to outlive so many kingdoms. The building of Constan- tinople was a fit occupation for the ruler who had first recognised in Christianity the firm ally of the Roman empire. It was just that he who had assembled the first General Christian Council should lay the foundation of the first city which rose under Christian auspices and which for eleven centuries proved a real bulwark of Chris- tianity. Constantine observed the usual ceremonies in founding the new city, and his conduct shews the am- biguous nature of his religious opinions. He attributed his action in selecting the site of Constantinople to the inspiration of God. Yet he held the golden statue of the Fortune of the city in his hands on the day of its dedica- tion. With that theatrical instinct which he displayed on other occasions, Constantine marched spear in hand to trace the limits of the new city; remarking to a courtier who humbly enquired how far he proposed to go, “‘ Till he that goes before me shall stop.” : When his end approached, Constantine eee Fe took the step from which he had hitherto death, A.D. 337. shrunk, and declared himself a Christian. Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, the opponent of Athanasius, admitted him to the Church, first as a catechumen by the imposition of hands, then by baptism. On the feast of Pentecost, a.p. 337, the great emperor passed away. One of his Jast acts was to recall Athanasius from exile. The character of Constantine has been Character of Con- the subject of much discussion. The Cpt Eastern Church has canonized him; the Western, with greater discernment, has given him the honour of founding the temporal power of the Papacy, but refused him the title of saint. He is one of the few who have been awarded the title of Great—a title which the world seldom if ever bestows on its greatest men, but which has often been the posthumous heritage of those who have turned the greatness of others to their own advantage. As Alexander’s conquests would have been impossible without the previous reign of his 326 CHARACTER OF CONSTANTINE,. [cH. XIII. father Philip—as Augustus owed his empire to the work of Caesar—as Frederick I. of Prussia, and not his more famous son, was the real founder of the military power of his nation—so Constantine’s success was really due to the masterly policy of the forgotten Diocletian. In one thing, however, Constantine shewed his genius. His predecessors had seen in the Christian Church an enemy which refused divine honours to the Emperor: Constantine, recognising in her a purifier of the social evils of the Empire, almost persuaded the clergy to restore the ancient Caesar worship. The emperor Galerius died apologising to the Church and beseeching the prayers of the Christians. He is handed down to posterity by Lactantius as the Evil Beast : Constantine, on the other hand, passed away amid a chorus of episcopal benedictions, and to this day bears the title of the Equal of the Apostles (’"Iaamécrodos). Not that he was without religious convictions. He did not, like our Queen Elizabeth, regard religion as one of the counters in the game of politics. On the contrary, he and all his family were extremely impressionable to religious influences. That Constantine believed himself to be favoured by visions from Heaven there seems to be no doubt. He was sincerely desirous to do his best for the interests of the Church. One is struck by his patience at Nicaea, and by the forbearance he shewed to the Donatists. But whether his patronage was on the whole advantageous to Christianity is very doubtful. In trying to settle the Arian question off- hand Constantine certainly attempted more than any human being could accomplish; but the blame lies rather with his ecclesiastical advisers than with the Emperor. As regards the deaths of Crispus and Fausta, it is hard to acquit or condemn Constantine. We know so little of the circumstances, that our judgment must remain unpronounced. It is equally impossible to define the Emperor’s religious views by the terms Orthodox and Arian—we might even add, Christian and Pagan. He directed an age of change, and from time to time he changed himself. He was orthodox when he thought that the Homdousion would give peace to the Church, Arian when it failed ; he was a Christian CH. x11.] GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON. 327 at Nicaea, and a semi-Pagan when he traced the founda- tions of Constantinople; a true type of his age, un- settled, but ever drawing nearer to Christianity. Few men, we may at least say, have done such enduring work. Greater characters than his have passed and will pass into oblivion, but Constantinople will probably preserve his name for many future centuries; and as long as Christianity lasts it will never be forgotten that Con- stantine summoned the great and holy Synod of Nicaea. When we pause at the grave of Constantine we seem to stand on a mountain top; before us lies the modern, behind us the ancient world. We are at the source of three great rivers of modern thought. The one representing the Eastern Church goes brawling down the mountain side, a copious but noisy stream, deafening us with its perpetual controversy ; when it reaches the level country it breaks into many courses, which flow in silent and unbroken streams divided by mighty barriers from one another, all alike seeming unable to fertilize the land through which they glide. Westward there flows a more silent but a mightier river; every mile of its splendid course is full of interest ; at one time it carries a flood of blessings, at another, its wrath destroys millions; at one part of its course it purifies all around; at another, it poisons the air with the pollutions it has received. Now loveable, now hateful; now gentle, now furious and terrible; now pure, now corrupted; now broad, now narrow—the Latin Church may at times cause disgust, but never indiffer- ence. Teutonic thought at last diverges from Latin Christianity. Its course lacks the uniformity of the Greek and the majesty of the Latin Church; but beauteous plants spring up by its sides, and goodly trees are nurtured by its waters. As we gaze from our mountain top, clouds yet obscure the horizon, which the eye longs to penetrate in the hope that all these waters may be joined together in the ocean of God’s love. CHAPTER XIV. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY TO a.p. 361. Gen nice between Few periods in the Christian Church Church and State are more momentous than the mighty aint. struggle between the upholders of the ' Creed of Nicaea and its detractors, which ensued after the death of Constantine. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that by it the whole course of subsequent history is affected, and that principles were then developed which are dominant at this day. Not only had a theological question closely affecting every Christian worshipper to be decided, but a political problem of the most important kind presented itself. The significance of the reign of Constantine is that in it the civil power first sought the aid of the spiritual. The great emperor reversed the policy of his predecessors by inviting the Christian Church to assist him in eradicating the moral disease of the Roman world. The two hostile powers—the Church and the Empire—became allies, but the terms of the alliance were not settled, nor has the true solution yet been found. The Arian controversy is in fact the opening scene of the great drama of Church and State, and we are able to recognise how the apparently irre- concileable difference in the aims of the two powers became evident from the first. The essence of all pro- gressive civil government must always be expediency. The wise legislator has to frame his laws with a view to the immediate needs of the people. He must con- sider not only the merits of every enactment, but the possibility of its enforcement. With the Church it is otherwise. Since her mission is to deal with verities CH. XIV.| WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH? 329 rather than possibilities, compromises, which are proofs of wisdom in a statesman, are in many cases rightly regarded as treason by a churchman. ‘Thus it is that, however harmoniously the ecclesiastical and civil polities may seem to work together, circumstances will inevitably arise to place them in opposition to one another, the triumph of either being seldom unattended by dangerous consequences: nothing being more con- temptible than a temporal ruler whose policy is swayed by a priesthood, save a priesthood which is the tool of a secular government. oe In the fourth century Church and _ Principles Empire united together in the work of involved in the : ; P Gontest: ruling mankind. ‘The emperors ceased to persecute, and.sought the friendship of the Church. No sooner however had Constantine stretched out the right hand of fellowship to the Christians than the question arose, ‘‘ What is the Church?” It was put in a practical form by the Donatists of Africa, who maintained that it was the remnant which had remained absolutely staunch during the persecution. The question to be decided in their case was simply whether certain bishops had or had not betrayed the Faith. The matter was fully in- vestigated, but this did not prevent a schism, which at times took the form of a civil war. The Donatists when the State decided against them renounced its authority. ‘Quid Imperatori cum ecclesié >” was their famous protest. The Arian controversy raised the same point but in a more subtle form: ‘‘ Were those men members of the Church who refused to accept a most difficult point of doctrine?”’ Constantine acted with great wisdom in the matter. He had assembled the Ecumenical Council which had arrived at a decision on the point at issue, and he considered that this ought to settle the question finally. But here the difference between the administration of the State and the principles of the Church became, for the first time in history, prominent. The former regarded tranquillity as the primary object to be obtained; the Creed of Nicaea was valuable in its eyes in so far as it ensured peace. Not so the Church. If the Creed of Nicaea 330 POLICY OF CONSTANTIUS. [CH, XIV. were true it should be upheld at any cost, for Truth should never be sacrificed to purchase a delusive peace. Thus, while Constantine regarded the Creed as an olive branch, Athanasius looked on it as a notice warning off all heresies (otnAoypadia xata twacav aipécewy),’ and this accounts for the disfavour in which the Emperor in his latter days held the bishop of Alexandria. To his dying day Constantine respected the work of the great Council, but he wished it to be as an open door to admit men to fellowship with the Church; even Arius had only to bow his head and enter by it. To | Athanasius the Symbol was like the sword of the Cherubim that turned every way to keep the way to the Tree of Life. Constantius and Athanasius, It seems probable that Constantine’s son and successor, Constantius, had a far more definite policy than that with which he is generally credited. The very vacillations of his faith seem to indicate a certain consistency of aim. When we find that this emperor supported the Eusebian faction, then received Athanasius back into favour only to turn upon him with increased bitterness, then allowed the Arians their turn, and finally threw his influence into the scale with the Homoeans, we are inclined to pronounce him the most fickle of men. But, if we recognise that Constantius was trying to carry out the work of his father by incorporating the Church with the Empire, we shall acknowledge that he really tried to ascertain the will of the majority and supported in turn whatever party seemed most likely to represent it.2 The great antagonist of the imperial policy was Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, one of the best types of those great rulers of the Church whom scorn of 1. Harnack, Hest. of Dogma, p. 59. 2. Constantius was always influenced by his surroundings. Athanasius, Fitst. Arian. § 69. Theodoret, A. #. v. 7. Prof. Gwatkin (Studies iv Arianism, p. 110) forms a most unfavourable estimate of this emperor’s character. ‘‘ Constantius” says Cardinal Newman “ may be taken as the type of a genuine Semi-Arian;.... balanced on this imperceptible centre between truth and error, he alternately banished every party in the con- troversy, not even sparing his own; and had recourse in turn to every creed for relief, except that in which the truth was really to be found.”—7Zzhe Arians in the Fourth Century. CH, XIV.} CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS? 331 all compromise where the truth is at stake has provoked to defy the power of the State. Athanasius joined to a singularly clear intellect a ceaseless energy and an indomitable will. He recognised in the Nicene doctrine a means of destroying Arianism, and he devoted all his powers to the support of the creed of the great Council. a ae This gave him an immense advantage Conservatives, Over those of his opponents who agreed in repudiating the opinions of Arius as explained at Nicaea, but had no fixed principles of action. The majority of this heterogeneous party have been called Conservatives, from the way in which they shrank from accepting the unscriptural word ooovcuor, which was the key-note of the Nicene formula; but conservatism was not their main characteristic. They had rather that instinctive dislike to clear dogmatic definitions which marks the would-be liberal or broad churchman.! ‘The representative of this School was Eusebius of Caesarea, a man of vast erudition, but a courtier and opportunist by temperament and training. As a historian, he knew too well that it is almost impossible to say that any party in a dispute is entirely in the right; as a theologian, he disliked making a new creed to exclude men from the Church; and asa frequenter of the court he saw the need of forbearance in matters of doctrine. Such a man was totally unable to comprehend Athanasius’s single-hearted devotion to a great doctrinal truth. Moreover, Eusebius and many others of his order had suffered morally by the alliance of Church and State. Whenever he writes about Constantine one feels that Eusebius prized the worldly glory which the Church gained by its alliance with the Empire, and was tempted to forget the purity of the one and the corruption of the other. To lose the 1. Professor Gwatkin, in his Studies of Arianism, seems to give the term ‘conservative’ two senses. On p. 91 he applies it to the bishops of Asia, whom he describes as being indifferent to the controversy, ‘‘and indifference is always conservative.” On the other hand, on p. 46, he speaks of the creed presented by Eusebius of Caesarea at the Council, as ‘*a truly conservative confession, which commanded the assent of all parties by demanding nothing”: this latter is the very essence of so-called liberalism in religious matters, 332 THE EUSEBIAN PARTY, [cH. x1v. imperial support seemed to such a bishop an evil which great sacrifices might be made to avert, and in this opinion the majority of the Oriental bishops concurred.} Eusebius’ views were exaggerated in his successor in the see of Caesarea, the crafty Acacius, the type of a courtier bishop of the fourth century. The leader of the first opponents of Athanasius was the other Eusebius, who was successively bishop of Berytus, Nicomedia, and Constantinople, after whom they were called Eusebians. These Eusebians have been defined as “the personal entouvage”’ of the bishop of Nicomedia. The nucleus of the party consisted of the able and influential circle of Lucianists who secretly sympathized with Arius, but the majority were conservative Orientals who shrank from the dogmatism of Athanasius. The name Eusebian is not long applicable after the great Council of Antioch, at which the various aims of the different sections of the party became manifest. The bond that held the Eusebians together was dislike of innovation and fear of Sabellianism, but it was destined to become manifest that no common creed could unite them.? The long Arian controversy from 337 to 381 proved that the only possible solution was the acceptance of the Creed The Eusebians. 1. It is remarkable that in his Zz/e of Constantine Eusebius does not so much as mention Athanasius, and only alludes to Arianism. (“epixds, Socrates, I. 1.) He is however very anxious to place the Council of Jerusalem, which immediately followed the assembly at Tyre where Athan- asius was condemned, on a par with that of Nicaea. Vita Comstantint, Iv. 47. His orthodoxy is defended by Bishop Bull, Defenszo Fid, Nic. 1. 9,§20. Bp. Lightfoot, art. ‘Eusebius of Caesarea’, D. C. B., vol. IL, p- 347- Dr. McGiffert (Prolegomena to Euseb., /Vzcene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. xiii) asserts the orthodoxy of his later writings. Prof. Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 107. Cardinal Newman (of, cz¢., p. 263), on the other hand, regards him as an eclectic teacher and a most dangerous adviser for Constantine. For his reasons for subscribing to the Creed of Nicaea, see Socrates, 1. 8; Stanley, Zastern Church, Lecture Iv. 2. The term Eusebians is an inexact equivalent of the oft recurring phrase oi wepi EioéGiov, by which Athanasius in his Defence against the Arians means the personal entourage of the bishop of Nicomedia. In Prolegomenato Athanasius the real Eusebians are shewn not to be identical with the large political party which bears the name, and to which Eusebius of Caesarea belonged. They are to be carefully distinguished from the Semi-Arians, who appeared later and whom Athanasius in his De Synodis was most anxious to conciliate. Gwatkin, of. cé#., pp. 7I—73; Newman, op. cit., pp. 272 foll. CH. XIV. ] ATHANASIUS RETURNS. 333 of Nicaea as explained by those who had found all conservatism in language or liberality in definition impracticable. ies Constantine left numerous relatives, Partition among whom he divided the splendid Empire. heritage of the Empire. ‘The soldiers, however, decided that no collateral branch of the family should have a share in the government, and massacred all the imperial family except Con- stantine’s three sons, Constantine II., Constans, and Constantius, together with two children, Gallus and his infant brother Julian, nephews of the deceased emperor. The empire was divided between the three brothers; the Gauls, Spain and Britain falling to Constantine II., who had fixed his capital at Trier (Tréves); Italy and Africa to Constans; and the Eastern provinces to Constantius, who was compelled to watch the Persians from the Syrian Antioch. At this time the bishops in the Western Empire, imagining, no doubt, that all had been settled at Nicaea, were hardly aware of the importance of the Arian question. It is to the East therefore that our attention must be chiefly directed. Constantius was resolved to support the Eusebians, owing partly to the influence of an Arianizing priest who had access to his person, but chiefly to a third Eusebius, then the all-powerful eunuch of the palace.! The Emperor did not, however, prevent the return of Athanasius to Alexandria. The bishop entered the city on Nov. 23rd, 337, and at once set to work to reorganize his St. Antony § church.? The Arian faction, which was at Alezandria, owever very influential, claimed to have the support of the great solitary, St. Antony. With some difficulty the saint was per- suaded to leave his retreat and to shew himself in Alexandria as the supporter of the Creed of Nicaea. No argument could be more convincing than the testimony of the hermit who was the marvel of his age and 1. Socrates, 1% 2. Sozomen, III. 1, 2. Socrates, 11. 3. Sozomen, 111.2. Theodoret, 1. 1, the Tenth Festal Letter of Athanasius. Gwatkin, p. 136, ‘The Return of Athanasius,’ Note cc, Hefele, Councils, § 52. 334 ATHANASIUS AGAIN BANISHED. {[cu. xiv. country. Antony departed to his retreat in the desert on the third day of Messori (July 27) 338, after having confirmed his mission by numerous miracles! In the meantime Paul, bishop of Constantinople, had been deposed and Eusebius translated from Nicomedia to the imperial city. The Eusebians were bent upon the Second : deposition of Athanasius, and new ac- banishmesto' cusations were brought forward. He was accused of having acted harshly and uncharitably as bishop of Alexandria, and of de- frauding the widows of Egypt and Libya by selling for his own benefit the corn provided for them by the Emperor. He was also charged with violating the canon forbidding a bishop deposed by a council to be restored to his see by the aid of the secular power. These accusations were despatched to the three em- perors, and to Julius, bishop of Rome.? Just before Easter, 340, Philagrius the praefect compelled Athanasius to leave Alexandria for the second time; and Gregory, a native of Cappadocia, was with much violence in- stalled as bishop in his stead. For seven years Athan- asius was absent from his see, this being his longest period of exile.’ The Eusebians had in 339 sent from Antioch Macarius a presbyter, with his - deacon, to accuse Athanasius to Julius, bishop of Rome, Appeal to Rome. 1. The visit of Antony to Alexandria rests on the statements in the Life of Antony, c. 69, supposed to have been written by Athanasius, and in the /ndex to the Festal Letiers, X. But the very existence of the Saint is doubted. Prof. Gwatkin stated the case against it with great force in 1882, Studies in Arianism, Note B., pp. 99 foll. ; but the appearance of the edition of Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa by Mr. F. C. Conybeare, which supports the genuineness of this description of Jewish ascetics in Egypt in the first century, and the careful discussion of the evidence for the Life of St. Antony in the Wicene and Post-Nicene edition of Athanasius, prove how much can be said on the other side of the question. See also The Laustac History of Palladius, by Dom Butler, vol. I., pp. 215 ff. ; and Sanday, Cretzccsm of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 58, 59. 2. Sozomen (III. 2) says that the main charge of the Eusebians against Athanasius was that he had returned to his see after having been deposed by a council with the consent of the civil authorities. Athanasius, A7Zs?. Arianorum,c.9. See also the encyclical letter of the bishops of Egypt in the Apology against the Arians, c. 3 foll. 3. Socrates, 11. 8—10. Sozomen, 111. § Theodoret, II. 3. CH. XIV ] JULIUS, BISHOP OF ROME. 335 whither the bishop of Alexandria and his friend Marcellus of Ancyra had also betaken themselves. ‘The behaviour of the Roman bishop, when appealed to by both religious parties in the East as arbiter, proved him to be well quali- fied to act as judge in so great a quarrel. The conduct of Julius was impartial and dignified, and is character- ised by an absence of that arrogance of demeanour which was soon to be conspicuous in his successors. He refused to express any opinion till he had investigated the matter, for which purpose he summoned a synod of fifty bishops. As this assembly pronounced Athan- asius and Marcellus innocent of the offences laid to their charge, Julius wrote to the Eastern bishops then assembled at Antioch, exposing their conduct towards both Athanasius and himself. ‘This letter was addressed to Dianius and Flacillus, and is pro- Julius’ Letter nounced to be “one of the ablest docu- eaitern Blihops. ments in the entire controversy”. Julius writes with forbearance ; though he had been himself greatly wronged by the Eusebians, he indulges in no recrimination, but points out clearly how uncanonical all their proceedings had been. The deposition of Athanasius, for example, was contrary to the acknowledged custom that no sentence could be pronounced against the bishop of Alexandria without the assent of the bishop of Rome; and the appointment of Gregory was utterly illegal, as an entire stranger ought never to be put over any church, but the bishops of the province ought to have ordained “one in that very church, of that very priesthood, of that very clergy”. As regards the admission of Athanasius to communion, Julius shews that nothing was done till after most careful investigation, and that he was expressing not his own personal convictions but those of all the bishops of Italy. The whole letter is a proof of the vast superiority of the Roman church in calm dignity and moral tone to any Christian community in the Eastern provinces.’ 1. Athanasius, Apologia contra Artanos, c. I1., §§ 2I—35. Socrates, 11. 17. Sozomen, Ill. 10. The two last named, in their summary of the letter, imply that no canons could be passed without the consent of Rome « but Julius in his letter merely claims that the bishop of Alexandria 330 THE COUNCIL OF THE DEDICATION. [cu. xiv. A large number of Eastern bishops met ee SonEse a at Antioch in a.p. 341 to celebrate the Creeds, A.D. 341, Gedication of the Golden Church erected by the Great Constantine; and the oc- casion was seized upon for the holding of a council to determine the Creed. We now enter upon a period of creed-making lasting for about twenty years, the object being to frame a confession of faith to supersede the Nicene Symbol. No less than four formulae were pro- duced by this assembly; and another was issued from Antioch four years later, so that the metropolis of the East gave the name to five confessions of faith. All of these were inspired by a strong dread of Sabellianism and are characterised by the omission of the test word onoovatov. At the Council of Antioch the conservative element was in the ascendant, and three of its confessions are framed in the interests of the timid orthodoxy which shrank from the boldness of the Creed of Nicaea. The first creed has been termed an ‘encyclical of the Euse- bians of an evasive character’, and opens with memorable words: “ We have never been followers of Arius, for how can we who are bishops follow a presbyter?” It condemns the Sabellian teaching of Marcellus by asserting the eternity of Christ’s Kingdom. The second Antiochian creed, better known as the Creed of the Dedication, may justly be styled the creed of the Eusebian party. It was ascribed to Lucian the martyr,’ the master of Arius and Eusebius, one of the great scholars on whom the mantle of Origen had fallen. It is a most interesting document, especially the last clause and the anathema affixed. The Three Persons of the Trinity are declared to be three in substance (vrocrdoe) but one in concord (cupdwvia), and an anathema is pronounced on all who say “ that there was a time or season or age before the Son was begotten; or that the Son was a creature like one of the creatures”. A third creed, a personal expression of faith, “God knoweth, whom I call as witness for my own soul that I thus believe,” etc., was proposed by Theo- cannot be proceeded against except by the Apostolic see. Hefele, Councils, § 56. 1. See Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine, p. 174, note 5. a CH. XIV.]} CHARACTER OF THE ASSEMBLY, 337 phronius of Tyana, in which Marcellus of Ancyra was anathematized with the earlier heresiarchs, Sabellius and Paul of Samosata.? Bee But the Arian influence was at work. at Antioch, Lhe Eusebians were in the majority, but the small but able clique of Arian sympathizers held a private meeting after the Council had dissolved, and sent a creed to Constans in the name of that assembly, with a conclusion which, though resembling the Nicene anathema, gave the doctrine of Arius free admission to the Church. By the publication of this fourth creed of Antioch the Arians made a definite claim to impose their views on the Church, and for nearly eighteen years they adopted it as the formula of their party, replacing it in 359 by the ‘ Dated Creed’ of Sirmium. Great disputes have arisen as to the character of the ‘ Council of the Dedication’, as this assembly is sometimes styled. Its canons were widely accepted, and Hilary of Poictiers, the Athanasius of the West, calls it “an assembly of saints”. Yet it was unquestionably composed of enemies of Athanasius, and its confessions of faith were intended to supplant the Creed of Nicaea. ‘This inconsistency may be ac- counted for by supposing that it was mainly composed of what may be termed orthodox opponents of the Homdousion, 1.e. men who were persuaded of the true Divinity of the Son, but did not realize that the accept- ance of the test-word was necessary in order to maintain the Catholic doctrine.” I. The creeds of the Council are to be found in Athanasius De Synodis, 22—25, the last chapter giving an account of how the fourth creed was drafted. For a discussion of the creeds see Gwatkin, of. czz., pp. 115 foll., and also in Socrates, H. #. 11. 10. Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine, pp. 172 ff. At first sight it is hard to see why even the fourth creed should have been unacceptable, and it is only by a careful perusal that it is evident that the compilers of it have laboured to make its language closely resemble the Creed of Nicaea, and at the same time to leave abundant room for Arian evasion, Notice especially the words in the final anathema against those who say kal more jv xpdvos 7) alwy bre ovK Fy. 2. To get rid of the difficulty of the high commendation of the canons of Antioch by Hilary of Poictiers (De Synodis, c. 32), the Council of Chalcedon, and Popes Zacharias and Nicholas I., two councils have been*assumed—one of fifty bishops which made canons, and one of thirty or forty which condemned Athanasius. (A/ams. I1., 1305 note.) Hefele (of. czt., § 56 ad fin.) has some very wise remarks ix 338 NEED OF A DEFINITE CREED. [cu. xiv. It may perhaps be considered a subject for regret that a moderate creed like that of ‘the Dedication’ did not supersede the more definite formula of Nicaea. But the expression of such regret would betray an im- perfect apprehension of the spirit of the age. ‘The Church of the fourth century was bound to speak with no uncertain voice on a matter of such supreme im- portance as the question of the precise relationship of the Son to the Father. Both Athanasius and the genuine Arians recognized this and fought for a definite object; and the Eusebian party, in shrinking from pronouncing on the real point at issue, was certain to be crushed between the two real combatants! At the Council of the Dedication these wavering theologians were made the catspaw of the Arians, and time was _destined to shew that in defeating Athanasius they had ruined their own cause. But Athanasius was not yet suppressed, and the turn ‘of political events gave the great Alexandrian a splendid if transitory triumph. As the death of Constantine II. in a.p. Councilsof 340 had left Constans master of two-thirds Piiliprepelis of the empire, Constantius found himself A.D. 343. obliged to defer to his more powerful brother, who favoured the Nicene faith as received by the prelates of the undivided West. At the suggestion of Constans that the Eastern and — Western bishops should assemble for a conference, Constantius sent representatives from his dominions to meet the Western bishops at Sardica, the modern Sofia in Bulgaria. The Council marks an epoch in ecclesiastical history as the first occasion on which the difference between the Eastern and Western branches of the Church became apparent. The Westerns, ninety- five in number, were accompanied by Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, who, together with Hosius of about the conduct of the bishops, and concludes thus: “ Finally it must not be forgotten that, if the canons of the Antiochian Synod’ are to be spoken of as Camnones Sanctorum Patrum, and their second creed is said to be published by a Congregata Sanctorum, Synodus, still no one intended thereby to canonize the members of the Antiochian Synod as a body. If we understand the word ‘holy’ in the sense of the ancient Church as a title of honour, then a great part of the difficulty disappears.” 1, Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine. p. 175. CH. XIV. ] ATHANASIUS ACQUITTED. 339 Cordova, once the trusted adviser of Constantine, had come from the court of Constans. The Orientals, offended at the presence of the accused bishops, de- manded that they should not have seats at the Council, and, on their Western brethren declining to reject Athanasius and his friends as men labouring under a serious accusation, withdrew to Philippopolis within the dominions of Constantius. From this city they issued a very intemperate condemnation of the pro- ceedings at Sardica, and put forth as their creed the Arian formulary which had been drawn up after the conclusion of the Council of the Dedication at Antioch, adding to it anathemas condemning the system of Marcellus. The Sardican council in the meantime investigated the cases of Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra, and acquitted both bishops, accepting Mar- cellus’s explanation of his doctrines as satisfactory. It also passed the famous canons allowing deposed bishops to appeal to Julius, bishop of Rome, who had already shewn himself to be a most impartial judge in such matters. Constans sent two bishops, named Euphrates and Vincent, to Antioch to announce the decisions of the council to Constantius.} An attempt, as foolish as it was The Macrostich, criminal, on the part of Stephen,-hishop Athanasius Of Antioch, to throw discredit on the returnsto Sardican envoys, temporarily alienated Alexandria, . A bf be A.D. 346. Constantius from the Arianizing party, and in 344 another council was held at Antioch, which deposed Stephen for a vile plot against I. This council is placed by both Socrates (11. 20) and Sozomen (III. 12) in the consulship of Rufinus and Eusebius, in the eleventh year after the death of Constantine the Great, viz. in A.D. 347. But the Festal Letters fix the date A.D. 343, Judex to Festal Letters, xv. The council was presided over by Hosius of Cordova, whose signature is followed by that of Julius of Rome by his presbyters Archidamus and Philoxenus. Athanasius, Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c; 16. Theodoret, 11.6. Prof. Gwatkin has a valuable note on the date of the synod; see also Hefele, Counczls, § 58. Canons 3, 4, and 7 (5 in the Greek) give deposed bishops the right of appealing to Julius bishop of Rome, and this fact has raised a threefold discussion : (1) whether the right of appeal was given for the first time to the Roman See by the council, or (2) whether the council merely confirmed the inherent right of the Popes, and (3) whether the meaning of the canons is not merely that the right of hearing appeals was given to Julius personally. Y2 340 RETURN OF ATHANASIUS, _ [cu. x1v.. the character of Euphrates of Cologne. The same assembly drew up a fifth creed of Antioch, known, from its great length, as the ‘ Macrostich’, which vehemently condemned Marcellus of Ancyra and his follower Photinus, bishop of Sirmium.’ After this council Con- stantius relaxed his severity against the Athanasian party and made overtures to the bishop of Alexandria himself. As the intruder Gregory was dead, there was no further reason for Constantius to hinder Athanasius’s return to Alexandria, and after an interview with the Emperor the bishop was allowed to go back to his see. The populace poured out of the city to receive him, and he was escorted to his church with shouts of acclamation. It seemed as if the old democratic spirit had revived in the popular enthusiasm with which the Alexandrians welcomed back their bishop ; and from this time Athanasius was supported by his countrymen in his long contest with the imperial authority.? 1. The treachery of Stephen is described by Athanasius in his Historia Arianorum ad Monachos,c. 20. Theodoret, 11. 7. It is said that Euphrates was subsequently deposed by a synod of Cologne for Arianism, but the genuineness of the Acts is much questioned. Hefele, § 69. Socrates, 11. 19. Athanasius, de Synodzs, c. 26. The text of the Macrostich (called uaxpborixos €xbeots by Sozomen, H. £. 111, 1) is given in Hahn, Symdole, § 89. After reciting the fourth creed of Antioch, this creed, or rather thesis, shews: (1) That the terms dyévvyros and dvapyxos can only be applied to the Father ; (2) In refusing to acknowledge three Gods, it is not meant to deny that Christ is God, for He is Oeds éx Qeo0: (3) Those who say that the Word has no separate existence apart from the Father, or that his kingdom has beginning or end, are to be abhorred (SdeAvacdue8a), as the followers of Marcellus and Photinus (Zx«ore:vds, Athanasius ?) ; (4) A belief that the Son is like in all things to the Father is expressed ; (5) The Patripassians and Sabellians are condemned, as well as (6) those who say that the Father begat the Son by necessity and not by His purpose and will. (7) The creed ends by declaring the indissoluble union between the Father and the Son. The necessity for publishing this long creed is to convince the Western Church of the way in which the heterodox (meaning presumably Athanasius, whom they dare not name, and Marcellus) had misrepresented the language of the Oriental Christians. The language of this creed in many places recalls forcibly that of the Quecungue vult. It was an expansion of the Creed of the Dedication, the explanations being given to conciliate the Western Bishops. Bethune-Baker, Cé&ristian Doctrine, p. 176. 2. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 21, says that Constantius felt compunction at the treatment of Euphrates by Stephen; in c. 25 the joy at the return of Athanasius is described. CH. xIV.] DEATH OF CONSTANS AND JULIUS. 34! For nearly ten years Athanasius re- ewe ten years mained at peace at Alexandria; during eace. State of : . ; 4 : Parties between Which period, however, Arian intrigues A.D. 346-356. were by no means idle, and it will be necessary to trace the steps by which Constantius was brought to consent to again remove Athanasius and to impose an Arian formula of belief on the Church. The previous contest had resulted in acceptance of the Creed of Nicaea by the Western Church, but the acquittal of Marcellus had led to its bishops having countenanced a misleading interpretation of the test-word. The Orientals, on the other hand, still saw more danger in the Sabellianism of Marcellus than in the Arianism of the Eusebians, and in their zeal to condemn his doctrines were prepared to be led into a repudiation of the Homdousion. ‘The first object of the Arianizing faction was, as formerly, to strike Athanasius in the vulnerable point of his friendship with Marcellus. The Western portion of the Empire was till 350 under the guidance of the emperor Constans, a warm supporter of Athanasius; and till 352 the policy of the Church was directed by the sagacity of the great Roman prelate Julius. After the death of Constans the Western provinces were under the sway of the usurper Magnentius, whose defeat by the generals of Constantius at Mursa in 351, and again at Mount Seleucus in 353, made that emperor sole master of the Roman world. Julius was succeeded in the see of Rome by Liberius, a rash but irresolute man, whom events proved to be totally unfit to cope with the difficulties of the situation. Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, was the nie ecient first object of attack on the part of the OD se.” Oriental bishops. He undoubtedly held heretical opinions, but his condemnation did no small injury to the cause of Athanasius by creating an impression that the Nicene formula en- couraged Sabellianism. He had, as we have seen, already been anathematized at Antioch in 344, where the bishops with somewhat laboured playfulness had, according to Athanasius, styled him S'xotewos, the man of darkness, instead of ®wrewos, the man of light. Two Western synods had also pronounced against him, 342 ATHANASIUS AGAIN ACCUSED. [cuH. xiv. one at Milan about 345 and one held at his own city of Sirmium in 347. The bishop however managed to defy his opponents till the defeat of Magnentius in 351, in which year a synod met at Sirmium and deprived Photinus of his see. An appeal to the emperor Con- stantius only resulted in the recalcitrant prelate being driven into exile.’ sa arsenate After the overthrow of Magnentius, overcome in the Constantius, now master of the West, Westat having left his cousin, the Caesar Gallus, Arles ang a in nominal command of the Oriental er ’ provinces, was able to turn his attention to ecclesiastical questions. Valens, bishop of Mursa, had obtained great influence. by announcing to the Emperor, as he awaited the result of the battle against Magnentius with anxious trepidation, that the imperial troops had gained the victory. The assertion of Valens that an angel had brought him the news was readily believed, and he became the trusted adviser of Con- stantius. The Emperor was still further brought under Arian influence by his marriage with Eusebia, whose virtues did not prevent her attachment to anti-Nicene doctrine. After the final defeat of Magnentius the charges against Athanasius were renewed, and the Emperor’s mind prejudiced against the great Alexandrian by accusations of his having not only caused dissension between the brothers Constans and Constantius, but also of having supported the usurpation of Magnentius. At a synod at Arles, Vincent bishop of Capua and Marcellus of Campania, the representatives of Liberius bishop of Rome, were induced to sign a condemnation of Athan- asius on condition that the Arian heresy should be rejected in express terms. This condition remained 1. The dates of the different synods by which Photinus was condemned are very uncertain. The D. C. #. (art. ‘ Photinus’) fixes the first Synod of Sirmium, on the authority of St. Hilary of Poictiers, in 349. Socrates (. £. 11. 29) gives an account of his condemnation after the enquiry held by Basil of Ancyra in 351. Hefele, Coumctls, §§ 71, 72. Hahn, Symbole, § 90. For the opinions of Photinus: Neander, Church History, 1v., pp. 93 foll. Photinus followed Paul of Samosata in making the évépyeca Spacrixh of the Logos imply merely its enlightening influence on the man Jesus. The best treatise on the whole subject is Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra. : cH, xIv.| THIRD EXILE OF ATHANASIUS. 343 unfulfilled; and Liberius, after indignantly repudiating the action of his legates, sent Lucifer of Calaris to Constantius to ask for another council. The Emperor granted the request of the Roman bishop, and in 355 -one hundred Western and a few Eastern bishops met at Milan, where the Emperor was then residing. Constantius himself appeared as the accuser of Athan- asius, and only three bishops—Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercellae, and Lucifer of Calaris—had the courage to brave exile by resisting the imperial pleading. Liberius was despatched to Beroea in Thrace for his contumacy in refusing the Emperor’s presents sent by the hand of the chamberlain Eusebius; and the aged Hosius, president of the council of Nicaea, was banished to Sirmium.!' The Western bishops were awed into a repudiation of the cause of Athanasius and the Creed of Nicaea; and in the February of the following year, 356, the soldiers under Syrianus the praefect of Egypt surrounded Athanasius in the church of St. Theonas at Alexandria. The bishop, who escaped with difficulty, was placed beyond the reach of his enemies. An intruding bishop was established in Alexandria, whose previous life emphasised the difference between political Arianism and the cause of Athanasius. George of Cappadocia, the Arianizing occupant of the see, had passed his early days in the business of contracting for the provisioning of the Roman army, and had been convicted of fraudulent ORC Seen a The Synod of Milan and the thir Ga diaavat beiectinent! of Athanasius mark the the foesof§ triumph of the Eusebian party, which Athanasius. had opposed the adoption of the Homo- ousion. It had succeeded in getting rid of the chief supporter of the Nicene Creed and of the Creed itself. But the majority of this faction was not composed 1. Hefele, Coumczls, §§ 74, 75. 2. Athanasius, Afologia ad Constantium, c. 243 Apologia de Fuga, 24. For George see Athanasius, 7st. Arian. ad Monachos, c. §1 and ¢. 75. Gibbon (chap. xxiii.) in a note says that ‘‘it is not absolutely certain but extremely probable” that this George became the patron saint of England. and, he might have added, the Megalo-Martyr of the Greek Calendax, D. C. B., art. ‘George (4)’, vol. 11., p. 640 a 344 THE CREEDS OF SIRMIUM. _ [cH. xiv. of Arians, but of bishops who, while condemning Arianism, and at heart in agreement with Nicene doctrine, ‘disliked the word dmoovatos as unduly favour- able to Sabellianism. The events of the next few years tended to shew that there was no alternative. between the acceptance of the Nicene formula and the toleration of the teaching of Arius. Of the four parties into which the Church was divided—Homo- ousians, the supporters of Nicaea; Homoiousians or Semi-Arians,! who were ready to adopt the word ovcia, but not to allow the identity of the Son’s essence with that of the I'ather; Homoeans, who though Arians at heart desired to appear orthodox in language; and Anomoeans, or proclaimers of unblushing Arianism— only the first and last named could have any logical continuance. The other two had to decide whether they would fight under the banner of Nicaea or that of Arius. The Arians, having gained their point by the aid of the Eusebians, had no further use for these misguided Liberals, their object now being to induce the bishops to accept a formula which should have an orthodox sound but at the same time give countenance to any opinions which advanced Arians might advocate. The imperial residence was now fixed at Sirmium, which became, as Antioch had been some fifteen years before, a centre for the manufacture of confessions of faith. The fivst creed, including many The Creede of anathemas, shad already been put forth First Creed, 351; 2t Sirmium in 351, on the occasion of the deposition of Photinus, so that the Arian symbol, suggested by a council meeting Second Creed, 12 357 under the eye of the Emperor, or ‘Blasphemy is known as the second Sirmian Creed. of Simam’,? ‘The doctrines contained in this document ms" were avowedly Arian. The newly coined homoiousios was rejected together with the Athanasian 1. Sozomen (111. 18) says that the ‘‘ followers of Eusebius and other bishops of the East, who were admired for their speech and life,” said that homooustos might be applied to created things like men and animals, but homotousios only to incorporeal things like God and the angels. Hefele, Councils, § 77. 2. This name is given by Hilary, bp. of Poictiers. Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine, p. 180. CH. XIV.] SEMI-ARIANS ALARMED. 345 homoousios, as equally unscriptural, and it was pro- nounced blasphemous to attempt to explain the gener- ation of the Son of God, because the prophet had said “Generationem Ejus quis enarrabit?”. The superiority of the Father and the subjection of the Son was also plainly declared. This bold avowal of Arianism was variously received. From Antioch, Eudoxius, after holding a synod in conjunction with Acacius of Caesarea, the successor of the learned but vacillating Eusebius, wrote congratulating Ursacius and Valens on having restored peace to the West.1 Great alarm, however, was caused by the fact that Eudoxius and Acacius were under the influence of the arch-heretic Aetius, who pushed Arianism to its only possible conclusion by declaring that, if the Son is not of one substance with the Father, He must be unlike Him; and the Eusebians in Asia, who from their shrinking from open Arianism were henceforth styled Semi- Arians, began to protest. Their leaders, Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Eleusius of Cyzicus, hastened to Constantius and convinced the Emperor that the Church would never become united under a symbol like the second Creed of Sirmium.? Accord- ingly, at a fresh synod held at Sirmium, the so-called third Creed, which had been previously drawn up at an assembly at Ancyra held at the invitation of bishop Basil shortly before the Easter of 358, was accepted.® I, The second creed is given twice by Hilary: in his De Synodis, § 11, where it is headed Hxemplum blasphemiae apud Sirmium per Ostum (bishop of Cordova) e¢ Potomium conscrip~tae, and in his Adversus Constantium, in which he styles it De/tramenta Osti et incrementa Ursacit e¢ Valentis. Hahn, Symbole,§ 91. It is found in Greek in Athanasius, De Synodis, § 28, and in Socrates, 11. 30. The use of both duoovcrov and duoovctov is declared to be unsuitable in speaking of the Son. Sozomen, IV. 12—I15. 2. Sozomen, IV. 13, 14. The so-called Third Creed of Sirmium is, according to Hahn (of. ett., § 162), the ‘ Creed of the Dedication’, which is affirmed in a synodical letter given in Epiphanius, Haer. 73. It consists of a long exposition of the Trinity, and eighteen anathemas (Hahn has nineteen). It implies that ducovor.os is Sabellian in sense by making it equivalent to ravroovevos. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 161. Hefele, Councils, § 80. Mr. Bethune-Baker, however, calls the ‘Dated Creed’ the Third Creed of Sirmium ; Christian Doctrine, p. 183. 346 LIBERIUS YIELDS. — [CH. XIV. To this period belongs the sad story of the fall of the venerable Hosius of Cor- dova and of the Roman bishop Liberius, The former, after a life spent in the service of the Church, was, in extreme old age, compelled by torture to renounce opinions to the defence of which he had consecrated the energies of a life-time, and he retired to his native Spain, to end a glorious career of usefulness in inglorious penitence. Liberius also returned to Rome to find a rival bishop, named Felix, in his place. What creed he signed is not known with certainty—possibly it was the Third Creed of Sirmium, which was based on the Antiochene Creed of the Dedication and the Sirmian condemnation of Photinus.! It was now the Fall of Hosius and Liberius. 1. There is little doubt that Hosius signed the Second Creed of Sirmium, issued in 357, but the case of Liberius is not so clear. Theodoret (Hest. Eccl. ii. 14), Socrates (Hist. Accl. ii. 37), and Sulpicius Severus (Hest. Sacr. ii. 39) record the return of Liberius from exile without mention- ing that he signed anything, which forms some presumption against the supposition of his having subscribed to so distinctive a creed as the Second of Sirmium. Sozomen (7st. Eccl. iv. 15) records that he was summoned by the Emperor to Sirmium, after the Council of Ancyra, and there signed a s*ompilation of the decrees against Paul of Samosata and Photinus together with a formula of faith drawn up at Antioch at the consecration of the church ; he then goes on to say that Liberius drew up a confession of faith ‘n which he pronounced an anathema on all who denied the likeness of the Son to the Father. Athanasius twice plainly refers to the fall of Liberius Vist. Arian., § 41, and Aol. contra Arian., § 89); though he speaks of fim with very great respect and pity. It is possible that both these passages are later additions, but there is no reason to doubt that they were added by Athanasius himself. Jerome (de Vir. //lustr., c. 97) speaks plainly vf Liberius having signed a heretical document. Hilary (Con. Constant. fmp., c. ii.) and Faustinus (Preface to Z2b. Precum) seem to refer to a definite fall under compulsion, but their language is not clear. Parts of the correspondence of Liberius on the subject have been preserved in Hilary’s writings (Opp. Frag. vi.) together with Hilary’s comments on them; and these clearly speak of a signature to a heretical document which is described by Hilary as ‘ perfidia Ariana’. From this it would be quite certain that Liberius signed the second Sirmian formula, but for the genuineness of the fragment being doubtful; Hefele (Counczls, bk. v., § 81) rejects it, but his arguments are answered by Renouf (App. to Eng. Trans. of Hefele’s Councz/s) and Gwatkin (Studzes of Arianism, v., note F.), both of whom suggest that the list of bishops, which seems not to agree with the rest and so to throw a doubt upon the genuineness of the whole, may be spurious. It appears, then, that Liberius signed a col- lection of documents drawn up at Sirmium in 358, though it is not clear whether this included the second creed of Antioch (Gwatkin) or the fourth (Hefele). Hefele (doc. czt.) thinks that this was the only document signed by him, and that at the same time he denounced any who denied the CH. XIV.) POSITION OF THE SEMI-ARIANS. 347 turn of the Acacian or Homoean party to propose the ns fourth Sirmian creed, known—by the Creed, 359, Preface declaring that it was drawn up on the eleventh day before the Kalends of June in the consulship of Flavius Eusebius and Flavius Hypatius—as the ‘Dated Creed’. This creed declared our Lord to be similar (@wotos) to the Father who has begotten Him, but left a convenient loop-hole for Arian evasion in the words «ata tas ypadds, and forbids the employment of the word ovcia as un: scriptural.} Patty ee At this juncture Basil of Ancyra Ariminum ana @nd George of Laodicaea, alarmed at the Seleucia andthe progress of avowed Arianism, published Creed of Mice. a minute on the word odcia which has been described as “a practical surrender at discretion” by the Semi-Arians to the Homdéousian party.2 But Acacius and his friends were more than a match for the wavering Semi-Arians, and also, as the sequel shews, for the Homd6ousians when bereft of the powerful support of Athanasius. Constantius resolved to settle the religious question by two simultaneous councils. ‘~The Westerns were summoned to Ariminum, and a smaller assembly of Eastern bishops met at Seleucia. Valens and Ursacius, who undertook the likeness of the Son to the Father, so that though he rejected the Nicene formula he still clung to the orthodox Faith. Newman, who discusses the whole question of the Sirmi.: Councils (Avzans, p. 322, and App. Ill.), agrees with this, though he acknowledges that at first sight Liberius appears to have signed the second Sirmian formula. On the other hand, Renouf (/oc. cz¢.) argues that the language of Athanasius, Faustinus, and Jerome, not to mention Hilary, clearly shews that the document signed was distinctly heretical. So also Gwatkin (/oc. ct.) maintains that besides this formula Liberius signed the Second Creed of Sirmium ; as does also Mr. Barmby (D. C. &., art. ‘ Liberius’), except that he allows some doubt as to whether it was the first or the second Sirmian formula. [I am indebted for this Note to the Rev. C. E. Garrard, M.A.] 1. Athanasius, De Synodis, § 8. Valesius says it was drawn up by Mark of Arethusa; Hahn, Symdole, § 93, note 581. See Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, Athanasius, Prolegomena, c. ii. § 8, p. liv., for an excellent discussion by Bishop Robertson of the word Soros as applied to the Son. P 2. Gwatkin, Arzanism, pp. 168, 169. 3. The council was originally summoned to meet at Nicomedia, but its assembly was prevented by an earthquake; Nicaea was next 348 TRIUMPH OF ARIANISM. {CH. XIV. management of the Italian synod, found the bishops firmly attached to the Creed of Nicaea. In vain did they attempt to convince the council of the expediency of abandoning the omodousion; the only reply they received was that “the business of the council was not to define what the faith was but to confound its oppo- nents.” The bishops then excommunicated Valens and Ursacius, and addressed a letter to the Emperor informing him that nothing but the Nicene Creed could give peace to the Church. Constantius, who had started on 18 June, 359, for the army employed against the Persians, received the deputation from the council coldly, and ordered it to retire to Adrianople, but welcomed Ursacius and Valens with honour. The Emperor now decided to withdraw the obnoxious ‘Dated Creed’ in favour of one drawn up at Nicé in Thrace, as it was hoped that the auspicious name of the place would recall the memory of the great council held by his father. The new confession of Nicé was, however, more opposed in spirit to the old Creed of Nicaea than many of its predecessors.? To it, however, the deputies of the council were induced to consent whilst at Adrianople, and the praefect Taurus was ordered to enforce it on the bishops at Ariminum. Threats, misrepresentations, and entreaties were em- ployed to induce them to subscribe to the new creed. They were told that their Oriental brethren had rejected the word ovcia: Valens, who declared him- self to be no Arian, begged the recalcitrant bishops, among whom was Phoebadius of Agen, author of a work against the Sirmian creed of 357, to subscribe selected, but the Arianizers, fearing that a general council might prove unmanageable, persuaded the Emreror to hold two simultaneous synods, Sozomen, Iv. 16; Athanasius, De Synedis,§ 7. The ‘ Dated Creed’ was drawn up to be submitted to both assemblies. Seleucia was in Isauria and was called Dedevxela rpaxeta. Hefele, of. czt., § $2. 1. Athanasius, De Synodis, § 10 ; Socrates, II. 37. 2. Socrates (Joc. cz#.) and Sozomen (IV. 19) say the Arianizers hoped that the less learned bishops would be misled into confusing Nicé with Nicaea. The creed of Nicé was a revision of the Dated Creed. Among other changes, it omitted the date, forbad the use of drécracts as well as o ovcia, and omitted the words card wdvra from the clause duoov de Adyouer roy Tiow ry llarpi xara wdvra. CH. xIv.] EFFECT OF DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS. 349 in the interests of peace. Winter was approaching, and one by one the bishops yielded, till at last the creed of Nicé was signed by the whole synod. Well may St. Jerome remark of this conclusion of the assembly at Ariminum, “The world groaned and wondered to find itself Arian.”? A similar scene was enacted at Seleucia, The daa where the Orientals declared themselves Seleucia, satisfied with their favourite Creed of the Dedication. Here Acacius and Eudoxius played the same part as Ursacius and Valens had done at Ariminum, by repudiating Arianism in the person of Aétius, who was exiled. After this the deputies sent by the synod to the Emperor signed the formula of Nicé, which was ordered to be sent to all bishops; and all, including even Dianius of Caesarea and the father of St. Gregory Nazianzen, subscribed.2, The victorious faction followed up their success at Constantinople in 360, where the Semi-Arian leaders were deposed, Mace- donius from Constantinople, Eustathius from Sebaste, and Basil from Ancyra. As is frequently the case, a man con- temptible alike in character and abilities ad by a crafty and unscrupulous policy succeeded where many abler men would have failed. Constantius had induced the bishops to assent to a creed which they detested, and had given the Church an external unity under an Arian symbol. The Emperor was still a comparatively young man, when after long years of patient intrigue he had succeeded, with the aid of Acacius, in forcing his creed upon the unwilling Church. But in the hour of his triumph Constantius heard that the legions of Gaul had pronounced in favour of his cousin Julian, and on 3 November, 361, death overtook him in the midst of preparations to meet his rival. The death of the last son of Constantine is a very important event in ecclesiastical history. From the edict of Milan to the Acacian synod of Constan- tinople in 360, the policy of making the Christian Death of Constantius. 1. Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est. (Adv. Lucz- Jerianos, c. 19.) 2. Socrates, 11. 40; Hefele, Counczls, § 82. 350 -—«S*~PLANS OF CONSTANTIUS FAIL. [cu. xiv, Church a department of the Empire had been instinc- tively, if not deliberately, pursued. The real principle at stake in the great struggle was not evident to the combatants themselves. To them it appeared to be a most important, but at the same time a very intricate, theological question; but had Constantius lived, and continued to enjoy the victory secured by Acacius and Valens over Athanasius, it would have been no mere triumph of speculative error. The final establishment of the Creed of Nicé would have signified that the Church, unmindful of her divine origin, had surrendered herself completely to the will of the Emperor. The calm which Constantius would have secured for her would have been the calm of death. But the Church of Christ was not destined to share the fate of the decaying empire, the fall of which she was to survive in order to create modern civilization out of its ruins. It may be well regarded, moreover, as providential that Constantine had looked coldly upon Athanasius, and that Constantius had hated him; for these emperors, by loyally assisting in making the Creed of Nicaea a living power in the Church, might have done a far greater injury to the cause of Truth by persecuting for its sake, than they did by opposing it. Athanasius was undoubtedly incapable either of the baseness to which the Eusebians had stooped, or of the trickery of Acacius and Valens; but he was spared their temptations. Instead of having to force the Creed of Nicaea upon an unwilling Church, he had to triumph over misrepre- sentation and calumny and to prove the sincerity of his convictions by his sufferings. Twenty years, however, were destined to elapse before the final triumph of the Creed of Nicaea, during which the government in the Eastern provinces supported the Homoean Arians. The tragic reign of Julian is an important interlude between the two great periods of the struggle, since throughout the brief but most interesting reign of this emperor the Christians found that not merely a particular doctrine, but the very existence of their religion, was endangered. CHAPTER XV. JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION. Ae _ [HE reign of Constantius was ruinous reign of alike to the Church, which had been rent Constantius. by faction, and to the Empire, which had been enfeebled by oppression. ‘The ecclesiastical policy of the Emperor had set house against house and divided families, and the disorgan- ization of the public service by the frequent journeys of the bishops from council to council is mentioned by the pagan historian as illustrative of the maladmin- istration of the period.’ The ecclesiastical mistakes of Constantius shewed that it was no easy matter to unite the Church and Empire without both suffering injury, and his legislation had grievously offended the pagans, among whom were some of the noblest and wealthiest of his subjects.2— It was natural therefore that an attempt should be made to reverse all that had 1, Ammian. Xx1. 16: ‘‘Quae progressa fusius aluit concertatione verborum, ut catervis antistitum jumentis publicis ultro citroque discurrenti- bus per synodos (quas appellant) dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conantur rei vehiculariae concideret nervos.”” Gibbon renders the sense of this passage thus :—‘‘ Constantius cherished and propagated, by verbal disputes, the differences which his vain curiosity had excited. The highways were covered with troops of bishops, galloping from every side to the assemblies which they call synods; and while they laboured to reduce the whole sect to their own particular opinions, the public establish- ment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys.” Decline and Fall, ch. xxi. 2. Constantius acted towards Paganism in a contradictory manner. On the one hand, in the Theodosian code, xv1.t. 10, ]. 2, and XVI. t. 10, 1. 5. there are laws of his promulgated in 341 and 353 commanding all sacrifices to cease. Beugnot (Hist. du Paganisme, p. 142) says that these laws may be regarded as spurious, and Gibbon (Decne and Fall, ch. xxi.) remarks, ‘*There is the strongest reason to believe that this formidable edict was either composed without being published, or was published without being executed.” M. Gaston Boissier (722 du Paganisme, vol. 1., p. 77) finds 352 A SAD CHILDHOOD. — (cH. xv. been done by the house of Constantine, by placing Paganism once more in the ascendant. ‘The patronage which Constantius had extended to the Church had done so much more harm than good, not only to the Empire but to Christianity, that its withdrawal was an actual benefit to true religion. ‘The manner in which this was effected is one of the most remarkable incidents in history. The sole survivors of the collateral branches of the family of Constantine were Gallus and Julian, the sons of Julius Constantius, who bore the title of ‘The Patrician’. The former was only thirteen years of age, the latter was but six, or according to Socrates (iii. 1) eight, when Constantine’s relatives fell victims to the soldiery in 337. Julian’s mother, Basilina, was a member of the Anician house, the noblest of the great Roman families, and a relation of Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople." The two royal youths had been saved by the efforts of the Arianizing bishop Mark of Arethusa, and were protected by Constantius, by whom Julian was entrusted to the care of Eusebius, then bishop of Nicomedia. Mardonius, a eunuch of Scythian birth, who had been in the household of Julian’s family, was made tutor to the young prince. Julian in his Misopogon has left us a picture of the miseries of his early education. Mardonius was a harsh master, a precisian and a martinet; the child was debarred from the pleasures natural to his age and station, and from the society of others of his own age. Julian’s unhappy childhood may account for the development of his peculiar character, and for his desertion of Christianity.2 Both Julian and Gallus Education of Julian. it difficult to reject the law, which in his opinion was not so much a formal enactment as a vague threat by which the Emperor hoped to drive waverers into the Church. On the other hand, the pagan apologist Symmachus in the days of Gratian praises the toleration of Constantius (4. x.), and Ammianus (XVI. 10) says that Constantius on the occasion of his visit to Rome in A.b. 355 was not offended by the sight of the temples and altars, 1. Rendall, Zhe Emperor Julian, p. 37. 2. Yet Julian had very pleasant memories of the time spent on a pro- perty in Bithynia left him by his grandmother. This he presented to his friend Evagrius, and in the letter giving him the estate Julian speaks of the gardens, springs, and groves as reminding him of the happy days of his CH. xv.] GALLUS. 353 were most carefully trained in the Christian religion. Constantius shewed much solicitude for their spiritual welfare, and seems to have arranged that they should be baptized, long before he himself submitted to that indispensable rite.? Julian had hitherto resided at Constantinople, but now, at the age of thirteen years, he was sent with his brother Gallus into partial captivity at the castle of Macellum, an ancient palace of the kings of Cappadocia. Gallus was very different in character from his brother Julian. His disposition was fierce and intractable, and his naturally unamiable temper was aggravated by the jealous surveillance and constant espionage to which he and his brother were subjected.? Julian, on the contrary, was of a somewhat dreamy and poetical temperament, and, as he soon displayed a decided taste for literature and study, his secluded life appeared to be rather qualifying him for a professorial chair than to be fitting him to play a practical part in life. | _ Julian soon lost his brother, the only companion of his solitude, and was left to the care of servantsand spies. Constantius, after the revolt of Magnentius, feeling the burthen of the entire empire too heavy for endurance, appointed Gallus as Caesar over the five great dioceses of the Eastern prefecture (March 5th, 351), fixing his residence at Antioch, and marrying him to Constantia, the daughter of the great Constantine. It soon became evident that the Caesar and his wife were equally unworthy of the charge committed to them; but the Gallus made Caesar. boyhood. £7. 46. Mr. Glover (Life and Letters in the Fourth Century, p- 50) attributes Julian’s excellent morality to the influence of Mardonius. **On a beaucoup remarqué la tendresse avec laquelle Julien parle de Mardonius son premier maitre,” says M. Gaston Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, vol. 1., p. 107. I. Julian, AZsopogon, 351 c. Theodoret, . Z. 111. 1. Sozomen, v. 2. It is nowhere, however, directly recorded that Julian was baptized, though Gregory Naz. implies that he was. Gregory (Iv. 23) says that both Gallus and Julian were enrolled among the clergy. The ‘Readers’, however, at Alexandria were not necessarily baptized. (Socr. v. 22.) As however the historian says they had to be fully baptized elsewhere, Julian had probably received baptism. 2. Rendall (of. c7t., p. 40) quotes Ammian. xXIVv., who says Gallus was as unlike to Julian as Domitian was to Titus. Zz 354 EXECUTION OF GALLUS. [CH. Xv. manner in which the ruin of Gallus was contrived shews” the cruel and cautious disposition of Constantius in its worst colours.! Till Magnentius was thoroughly crushed the Au- gutus allowed the Caesar to remain undisturbed; and it was not till 354 that a commission, consisting of Domitian the praefect of the East and Montius the quaestor, was sent to enquire into the administration of the provinces entrusted to Gallus. Stung by their insolent behaviour, the Caesar assembled the populace of Antioch, to whom his misgovernment cannot have been wholly distasteful, and appealed to them for protection. Both quaestor and praetorian praefect fell victims to the rage of the mob, indignant at the treatment to which the Caesar had been subjected. Con- stantius bided his time, and allowing Gallus to think that he was forgiven, gradually withdrew the veteran legions from the East, and sent flattering letters to the Caesar inviting him to visit him as a colleague. Gallus fell into the trap. Instead of proclaiming himself Augustus and committing his fortunes to the decision of war, he started to visit Constantius. He began his journey with pomp, and celebrated games in the circus at Constantinople. At Adrianople the infatuated Caesar was ordered to proceed with only a few attendants. On his journey westward the toils gradually closed round him. At Petovio in Pannonia he was arrested by the general Barbatio and stripped of the ensigns of his rank. He was thence sent to Pola in Istria, and closely examined, on the subject of his administration, by his enemy, the eunuch Eusebius. Constantius, on reading the depositions of his minister, had no hesitation in condemning his cousin to death, and Gallus was ignominiously beheaded. That he deserved his fate is certain, but the cowardly treachery of Constantius in thus luring him to his doom cannot be palliated, and it made a deep impression on the brother of the murdered Caesar.? 1. Ammianus (bk. x1v.) describes Constantia, the wife of Gallus, ws the author of his crimes and misfortunes. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch, xix. 2. Julian, Ap. ad Athentenses. CH. xv.] HELLENIC TASTES OF JULIAN. 355 In the meantime Julian had been Julian attracted ailowed to reside, first at Constantinople, Hellenism. and afterwards, when the jealous emperor dreaded the presence of the royal youth in the capital, at Nicomedia. He studied rhetoric under Hecebolius at both places, but his master was ordered to keep his pupil from listening to the dangerously fascinating lectures of Libanius. Julian however read the discourses he was not permitted to hear, and was delighted by their eloquence. The party of Hellenism seem to have already decided to make so promising a disciple as Julian their own. Everything contributed to their success. Julian, prejudiced against the religion of Constantius and his uncongenial guardians, was attracted to Hellenism alike by his ambitions and studies. The fame of Aedesius first attracted him to Pergamus. ‘The aged philosopher advised Julian to seek wisdom from his favourite pupils, Eusebius and Chrys- anthius.t These teachers artfully stimulated the young man’s desire for further knowledge, and with apparent reluctance allowed him to extort from them the inform- ation that a certain Maximus had been able to obtain signs of approval from the goddess Hecate, who had smiled on him in her temple. (a.p. 351.)? Julian sought Maximus and was initiated by him into the mysteries. It is possible that at this period he apostatized, though he still openly professed Christianity. At any rate, his heathen proclivities had become apparent, to the great distress of Gallus, a Christian by conviction as well as by profession. The Caesar sent Aetius, the famous Arian, to his brother, to confirm his faith; and Julian, too prudent to rouse the suspicion of Constantius, shaved his head, wore the garb of a monk, acting as a reader in the church. It was many years before he dared to throw off the mask and declare his real belief. On the death of Gallus in 354 Julian was ordered to Milan. For months his life hung in the balance. Constantius was at the height of his power. He was tyrannizing over the Church at Julian at Milan. 1. Rendall, of. cz#., p. 50. 2. Harnack in Herzog’s Realencyclopadie, See also Allard, Julien ? Apostat. 356 JULIAN A STUDENT. [cH. xv. Milan, and Julian doubtless witnessed the unworthy intrigues of the Arianizing bishops at that disgraceful synod! The treatment he experienced at the hands of Constantius intensified the hatred of Julian for his cousin; his life was in constant danger, and he had to simulate affection for one whom he regarded as the murderer of his brother, and whom he suspected of having caused the extermination of his family. Julian found in the Empress Eusebia a true friend, as she persuaded her husband -to allow him to go to Athens to prosecute his studies. Keni: For six months Julian enjoyed the first period of happiness in his life; he seemed in some respects born to adorn an university.? Among men of real genius Julian was able to shine, for Basil, afterwards the great bishop of Caesarea, then the most favoured pupil of Libanius, and Gregory of Nazi- anzum, the Christian poet-father, were among his asso- ciates. The latter has left a portrait of Julian as he appeared at Athens. It is the sketch of a man occasionally seen at the present time in a place of learning—an awk- ward, absent student, unsightly in appearance and gauche in manner—a man whose life has been spent in study, unused to or contemptuous of the decencies of life. We see his nervous manner, his restless gait, the twitching of his shoulders, his head nodding as he walked. We hear of his harsh peals of laughter, the irrelevant questions he sometimes addressed to a companion in © the street, now stopping abruptly, now turning suddenly to speak to his friend. The prophetic Gregory saw in the unsightly student the apostate emperor: but ordinary men must have considered that the brilliant scholar, whose awkwardness attracted attention, was fitted to be nothing but an eccentric professor. But neither Gregory nor anybody else could have suspected that within five years this odd student would have established a military reputation worthy of the greatest of Roman 1. De Broglie, L’Lglise et 7Empire, ut., pp. 258 and 284. Rendall, op. ctt., p. 55. 2. Julian in his Letter to the Athenians calls Athens the hearth of his mother (él rv rijs unrpds éoriav), Rendall, p. 56. 3. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. Vv. 23. Socrates, 111. 23. Theod., If]. I CH. Xv.]— JULIAN IN GAUL. 357 generals. During his sojourn at Athens, Julian made another step in apostasy by being initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. As affairs were too serious for Con- stantius to do without the assistance of a colleague, Julian was summoned to Milan, and on 6 November, 355, declared Caesar. Helena, the youngest daughter of Constantine, was given to him for wife, and a household suitable to his dignity was formed for him. But he was not a free agent. Constantius, incapable of trusting anybody, bound his colleague with a chain of minute instructions, encompassed him with spies, and sent him to Gaul to conduct a dangerous war, without authority to act on his own responsibility.! Julian saw his danger, and as he passed the threshold of the palace he was heard to repeat the words of Homer— Julian sent to Gaul as Caesar. E\\aBe wopdipeos Odvaros Kal uotpa Kparaiy.2 (72, v. 83.) Him purple death laid hold of and stern fate. On his arrival in Gaul, Julian found the land a prey to the barbarous Germans who were devastating the country, while the generals appointed by Constantius were either incompetent, or unwilling to assist the Caesar for fear of the displeasure of the Augustus. Julian reorganized the army, and drove the barbarians beyond the Rhine. Having thus freed Gaul from her invaders, he devoted himself to the restoration of the prosperity of the country, and to relieving the inhabit- ants from the cruel oppression of excessive taxation. He established himself at Lutetia Parisiorum, then a small town on an island in the Seine, of which he speaks with great affection in after days, contrasting the simplicity of the life of its inhabitants with the effeminate luxury of Antioch.’ 1. Mr. Glover says that it was not possible to deal otherwise with one so inexperienced as Julian. Lzfe and Letters in [Vth Century, p. 55. 2. Gibbon, ch. xix. WD. C. &., art. ‘Julian’, p. 495 b. Ammian. Kv.. 8,17: 3. érvyxavov ey xemudtwv mepl thy dirnv Aovreriay, dvoudtovar 3 otrws of KedXrot trav Ilapiclwv rhv modlyynv? éorw & ov peyddn vijoos éykemmévn TH worayo, Kal adrhv Kik\y wacav Td Telxos KaTadapuBdvet, Evdivas éx’ aurhv dpdorépwbev eiadyovot yépupat x.7.r. Miésopogon, 340 D. 358 DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS. [CH. xv. ; i The jealousy, or perhaps the mis- are ater fortunes, of Constantius interrupted the successful career of Julian in Gaul. In 360 the Persian war demanded more troops for the defence of the eastern frontier, and Constantius sent orders to Julian to despatch his best legions to the East. The Caesar obeyed the commands of his superior with reluctance, knowing well that the abandonment of Gaul by the flower of his army meant a renewal of the incursions of the barbarians. The inhabitants viewed the departure of the legions with despair, and the soldiers were unwilling to leave their homes for a distant campaign in the East. A mutiny took place, and the army saluted Julian by the title of Augustus. The Caesar rebuked the zeal of his soldiers, who threatened him with death if he did not accept the proffered honour. The very fact that the army had proclaimed Julian Augustus was enough to make Constantius his implacable foe; and, as acceptance of the dangerous honour made but little difference in the heinousness of the offence, Julian consented to assume the title. He tried to avert civil war by a letter to Constantius respectfully begging him to confirm the decision of the army.! But it seemed inevitable that the question should be decided by an appeal to arms. Julian celebrated the feast of the Epiphany in January, 361, at Vienne. ‘This was his last act of hypocrisy. From henceforth he declared himself an open and avowed Pagan. His rapid march from Gaul to Illyria belongs properly to the secular history of the Empire.? Julian took up his abode at Sirmium and reorganized the provinces of Illyria and Dalmatia, before prose- cuting the war; but on November 3, 361, Constantius i died at Mopsucrenae, and Julian was sole mei emperor. He heard the news as he crossed into Thrace. War was no longer necessary; Julian, as the last representative of the Flavian house, having been nominated Augustus by the deceased emperor on his death-bed. 1. Ammianus Marcellinus (xvii. 28) says that Julian sent a threatening letter to Constantius with the more conciliatory epistle. 2. It is related with great spirit in Gibbon, ch. xxii. cH. Xv.) RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 359 Julian entered Constantinople on December 11, 361, amid the universal enthusiasm of the people. ‘Themistius the famous orator had written to welcome him to the capital, and Julian replied in the language of a philosopher, declaring his preference for a life of meditation to one of active labour as a sovereign. One of his first acts was to appoint a scholar and a soldier as consuls for 362. Mamertinus was an orator and a poet; Nevitta a barbarian officer, whose nomin- ation was intended to gratify the numerous soldiers enlisted from beyond the frontiers of the empire. The Emperor’s treatment of his consuls shewed how greatly he prized the forms of the ancient Republic. He allowed his imperial dignity to be effaced for the moment before the majesty of the consular power, and with ostenta- tious humility paid a fine to the treasury for having pronounced the emancipation of a slave in his own name instead of that of the consul who was present. He harangued the Senate of Constantinople and sought their advice, and did his best to act the part of an officer of the Republic, of which he was in reality absolute master. These amiable follies, however, might cause a smile, but they did not seriously peace of injure so distinguished a warrior as Julian in the public estimation. Nor was he content with playing a part. With the same vigour with which he had reorganized Gaul, Julian set himself to purify the corruptions of the imperial court. The numerous Officials, the eunuchs, spies, cooks, and barbers, who had preyed on the public in the days of Constantine and Constantius, were dismissed with contempt, and palace retrenchment was accompanied by measures of financial reform throughout the Empire. A vast number of beneficent laws were passed to re- strict the oppression of the tax collectors. Indiscrimi- nate exemptions from the decurionate were removed, and only really deserving persons were henceforth to be excused from that unpopular office. Nothing was 1. Gibbon, ch. xxii. ‘*The emperor on foot marched before their (the consuls’) litters; and the gazing multitude admired the image of ancient times, or secretly blamed the conduct which, in their eyes, degraded the majesty of the purple.” 360 INCONSISTENT PHILOSOPHERS, [CH. xv. more remarkable than the amount of work accomplished by the new emperor, who lived the life of an ascetic philosopher, despised all luxuries, and denied himself the hours of needful repose in order that he might perform the military, legislative, and literary duties he imposed on himself as emperor, chief magistrate, and philosopher,’ But if Julian was frugal in his personal expenses, he was lavish in his patronage of learning. Letters were sent to the philosophers inviting them to court, and they appeared in swarms to partake of the imperial bounty. But to the disgust of their patron these men of wisdom, notably Maximus, whose spiritual communings with the unseen world had so impressed the youthful Julian, were instantly perverted by the atmosphere of the court, and forgot their philosophy in order to enjoy the luxuries of their new position. A few clung to their ragged garments and abstained from shaving, but lived in debauchery. Julian protested and wrote against these false cynics, but in vain. He himself was the only one who lived the life of a consistent philosopher. It is but just to say that Libanius refused to come to the court, and remained proof against the supplications of his illustrious pupil. Julian had included Christian men of letters in his invitation; he begged Basil to come and speak with him “as friend to friend”. The heretic Aetius, who accepted his invitation, was rewarded with an estate. The work of vengeance on the base ministers of the late emperor was not forgotten amid the reforms of Julian. Justice cried aloud for the punishment of such miscreants as Paul surnamed *the Chain’ from his activity in arresting suspected criminals, Apodemius, and Eusebius the chamberlain, who had plotted the death of Gallus. A commission, presided over by Sallustius the praetorian praefect, and consisting of the consuls Mamertinus and Nevitta, The Philosophers at Court. 1, Socrates, 111. r. Ammian., XXII. 4. 2. Rendall, of. cét., p. 156. Socrates (111. 13) gives an account of Hecebolius the Sophist—a Christian under Constantius ; a Sophist under Julian ; and a blatant penitent who begged the worshippers to trample on him as salt that had lost its savour, when Paganism was no longer profitable. CH. XV.] JULIAN’S GRECIAN SYMPATHIES. 361 Arbetio, a man of known severity, Jovinus, Julian’s master of the horse, and Agilo, was appointed to try © the offenders. Paul and Apodemius were burnt alive. The vile eunuch Eusebius was executed, with many others, some of whom were innocent of the abomina- tions of the late reign. The unjust severity of the commissioners cannot be laid to the account of Julian, who had always asserted the principle that every accused person had a right to be heard in his own defence. The court was not happily chosen, and a judicial machinery of the kind, if once set in motion, is liable to go on till it transgresses the limits of strict justice.? Thus far nothing has been said of most important feature in Julian’s policy, his attitude towards religion. Like all his family, Julian was very susceptible to the influences of religion and even of superstition, and his constant expectation of visions, oracles, and all sorts of communings with the unseen world, find a parallel in the vision and dream which led Constantine to give his support to Christianity.2/ Two alternatives were open to Julian when he formally declared himself a Pagan. He might have preferred the religion of Rome to that of Greece. The former was an aristocratic and somewhat formal profession of faith in the eternity of the imperial city and her gods; it appealed little to the imagination but much to custom and association, and, as subsequent history proved, had a very powerful and enduring hold on men’s minds. Julian would have found a very formidable ally against Christianity had he fixed his residence in the West and enlisted Roman prejudices on his side. But both circumstances and inclination led him to the East. Julian was a Greek by taste and education. He turns instinctively to Greek philosophy for guidance; he reminds the people of Alexandria and Constantinople that they are Greeks; Julian’s religious policy. the 1. Rendall, p. 154. Even Julian’s admirer Ammianus condemns the excessive severity of this court. 2. Mr. Glover says (Lzfe and Letters in the Fourth Century): ‘In this feeling of the dependence on Heaven and the constant reference of everything to the divine, he is very like Constantine.” 362 PAGAN HIERARCHY, © (CH. Xv. his hero and exemplar is Alexander the Great.1 He was naturally disposed, therefore, to desire the restoration of Hellenism under the form of Neo-Platonism,. Plotinus, Porphyry, and Jamblichus, the great masters of this school, had laboured to unite religion and philosophy, and had sought to stimulate the former by the practice of theurgy. Julian was desirous of erecting a Fe Bae waccsrtba Pagan Catholic Church on the basis of ae ivan Neo-Platonism,? in which all ancient cults were to be preserved and their rites practised, whilst their true significance was to be expounded by philosophers. An exalted morality was expected of the priesthood. Hitherto the priestly office had been held by hereditary succession and nad not involved any moral obligation. Julian desired to change this, and to make the pagan clergy take the place of the Christian, as custodians of the moral and physical well-being of the people. The priests were to live frugally, bring up their families in the practice of virtue, dress plainly except when engaged in the performance of sacred rites, avoid theatres and taverns, and generally to behave as models of grave decorum and serious morality. Hospitals and houses for the reception of strangers were to be founded, and the charity of the pagans was to surpass that of the Christians.2 The high-priest, hke the Christian bishop, was expected to visit his diocese, and correct his unworthy clergy. Julian himself as Pontifex Maximus stood at the head of this hierarchy. Even the Jews were to be included in the new scheme of comprehension, and Julian wrote to their patriarch in the most friendly terms, requesting the prayers of the nation, and com- mending the sacrificial system of the Law of Moses. In 1. Throughout the unfortunate and impolitic Persian expedition Julian strove to imitate Alexander’s conduct. Gibbon, ch. xxiv. 2. Rendall, p. 251. 3. Julian, ZP. 49, to Arsacius high-priest of Galatia: ‘* Then exhort the priest not to frequent the theatre, nor to drink in inns, nor to engage in any shameful or disreputable trade or craft,” &c., &c. Rendall, p. 1o9f. Among other things the pagan clergy were not to read erotic novels. Glover, p. 64. Care was to be taken to have good musical services in the temples (rfjs lepGs émimednOjvar povorkijs). Ap. 50. cH, xv.] CHRISTIANS NOT TO BE PERSECUTED. 363 order to render this again possible, Julian actually commenced the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem. The Jews shewed the utmost zeal in undertaking the work, which was interrupted by an astonishing miracle. As the workmen began to dig the foundations, balls of fire burst forth and drove them from the spot.! Julian’s attitude towards Christianity was not dissimilar to that adopted by Con- stantine towards Hellenism. He tolerated it, but hoped to reduce the Church to insignificance by withdrawing from her all public favour. Nothing can be more worthy of a philosopher than Julian’s language on the subject of persecution. The Galilaeans are not to be insulted or persecuted, persuasion only is to be used to bring men to the true religion.? In pursuance of this policy all the Christians who had suffered exile under the regime of Constantius were allowed to return to their homes.2 Perhaps Julian hoped that intestine disputes would thus arise to distract the Church, but the general drift of his policy of toleration is apparent, and it cannot be denied that the ideal Julian had set before him was not altogether ignoble. For it must not be forgotten that, even under Constantius, Paganism was the State religion, and that the emperors had favoured the Church not because of,.but despite their position. The title of Pontifex Maximus, assumed by Constantine and his sons, made them, despite their acceptance of the Christian Faith, the actual heads of the ancient religion. Julian was Attitude towards Christianity. 1. The earliest testimony to this miracle is Gregory of Nazianzum, late in the year A.D. 363 or early in 364, if we except a fragment of a letter from Julian himself cited by Warburton (/udéan, bk. Iv.) and Newman (Zssay on Ecclesiastical Miracles), but considered by Dr. Abbott (PAz/omy- thus, p. 185) not to refer to this event. The pagan historian Ammianus, writing about twenty years after Julian’s death, bears testimony to the interruption of the work of building the Temple, xx11I. 1. Rendall, p- 113. Gibbon, ch. xxiii. ‘‘The subsequent witnesses, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius, &c., add contradictions rather than authority,” says Gibbon in one of his foot-notes. _ 2. Julian, Z. 52, Rendall, p. 217. Socrates (11. 12) attributes Julian’s aversion to use compulsion to his having observed the honours paid to the confessors in the days of Diocletian. 3. Socrates (111. 1) says he did this in order to brand the memory of Constantius with cruelty, 364 STRENGTH OF THE CHURCH. [cH. xv, only fulfilling the duties of his station in interfering for the benefit of Paganism; and he did no wrong in withholding his favour from the Christians, who had only enjoyed the sunshine of imperial goodwill owing to the private and personal convictions of his pre- decessors.* ae Julian misled The failure of Julian’s efforts was regarding both due to two erroneous assumptions. “The Christianity’ Hellenizing party, according to the waist: Faas sanguine expectations of the Emperor, needed only a little encouragement to inaugurate a great religious revival; he imagined that the worshippers of the gods had, like himself, groaned under a Christian tyranny, and that they were ready to make a great effort to check the growth of the Church. Experience shewed that Julian had calculated on a spirit which was non-existent in Paganism. The Pagans, it is true, bore no good-will to the Christians, but they were not ready to make their religion into a serious earnest faith and to submit to the rigid control of a hierarchy of philosophers and pedants. The very worshippers of the gods smiled at his superfluous zeal as they saw Julian marching at the head of religious processions, inspecting entrails, and sacrificing hecatombs.? To the Emperor the Hellenic religion was, what it never had been to its professors, a serious earnest philosophic faith, wholly alien to the joyous pleasure-seeking worship of ancient Greece. If on the one side Julian misjudged the Pagans, he was equally mistaken in his estimate of Christian zeal. He judged the Christians, no doubt, by the time-serving bishops who had frequented the courts of Constantius and Gallus, and thought that the with- drawal of the imperial protection would reduce their numbers to insignificance. He was quite unaware of the immense weight of passive resistance with which the Church was able to oppose every step in his policy, and he found to his cost at Antioch that the Christians had popular favour on their side. In addition to this, Julian was unable to comprehend the noble intolerance 1. Beugnot, Hestotre du Paganisme. 2. Especially at Antioch. Rendall, p, 14%. CH. xv.] CHURCH’S PRIVILEGES WITHDRAWN. 365 of the Church, who would neither suffer a Pagan revival to despoil her of her children, nor allow the limits of her influence to be circumscribed. It was not possible to degrade the Church from the position she had attained without a severe struggle, nor was it possible to tolerate and at the same time to depress her. In making the attempt Julian incurred a more deadly hatred than he would have done had he persecuted like Galerius. Julian might have supported Paganism, and left the Church free though shorn of her privileges, without endangering the Empire; but when he tried to revive Paganism and to restore its shrines, when he tried to make the Church rebuild the temples which his predecessors had granted to her, and when he entered the lists as a controversialist, he failed completely, and began to find that the toleration, which he had striven to maintain, was impossible. Had he lived, he would have been obliged either to play the odious 7é of a persecutor, or to have abandoned his attempt to create a Pagan Catholic Church. Julian’s reign falls into two periods. Two Periods uring the first, he was full of hope that Julian’s reign. his religious project would succeed. His general policy at this time was one of scrupulous toleration. During the second, he began to see the hopelessness of his undertaking, and to annoy the Christians by all means in his power. He realized the difficulties of his position at Antioch, just as he was preparing for the Persian war. In the laws of Julian, preserved in the Theodosian code, the name of Christian is but once used, in an edict ordering all who claimed exemption from the decurionate on the ground of being Christians to be restored to the tax-roll.1 A law which fell with more force on the Christians was the order to restore the property of the temples and to rebuild those which had been demolished. Not only was great injustice shewn in confiscating lands which had been bought with what seemed a good title, because they had belonged to temples, but the Christians Laws of Julian. I. Codex Theod., xiii., t. 1, 1.4. Beugnot, p. 192, 366 MARK OF ARETHUSA. (cH. xv. felt it a point of conscience not to surrender to Pagan uses places or vessels which had been dedicated to the service of Christ.1 Mark of Arethusa, who had preserved the lives of both Julian and Gallus, suffered under this edict. He had demolished a temple in the days of Constantius, and used the materials to erect a church. He was ordered to restore the site and rebuild the shrine, or to pay for the damage he had done. He refused, and was cruelly treated by the pagan mob, who, exasperated by his patience, smeared him with honey and hung him up in a net exposed to the insects and the intolerable heat of the sun. Yet this torture could not persuade the aged bishop to yield so far as to repair a heathen shrine, nor would he listen to any offer of a compromise.? An edict, dated Feb. 363, forbade the celebration of funerals by day, and, as this was dated from Antioch, it may possibly have been intended to prevent the Christians from converting funerals into public demon- strations against the Emperor, especially when we remember that the famous riots about the bones of St. Babylas had but recently rien ae ulian naturally sought to gain over raaduenset headin to his way of csolsnde He had religion inthe but little difficulty in inducing the soldiery army. ae : to conform. Religion was with many of them a matter of discipline, and the success and popularity of their emperor smoothed away many difficulties. Nevertheless, that great pains were taken to avoid giving offence to the Christians in the army, the following incident will shew. On the occasion of some special donative Julian himself was present, and the soldiers were ordered to sprinkle a few grains of incense on an altar in loyal acknowledgement of the imperial largesse; but no Pagan image was set up, and no Pagan god was invoked. The soldiers regarded the act as a matter of military etiquette. That evening the 1. Rendall, p. 165. 2. This Mark was the author of the Sirmian Creed of 351 (Socrates, II. 30; Sozomen, v. 10); where, however, Valesius tries to distinguish between Marcus the Confessor and the Homoean leader. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Marcus’, vol. 11I., p. 825b. Rendall, p. 167. cH. xv.} CHRISTIANS AND THE CLASSICS. 367 Christian soldiers made the sign of the Cross, and their Pagan comrades ridiculed them for having offered sacrifice to the gods. There were only a few assembled at a mess-table, but the conduct of the believing soldiers made the affair conspicuous. Thinking that they had been entrapped into an act of idolatry, they rushed towards the palace proclaiming their loyalty to Christ. Julian ordered this breach of military discipline to be punished, and the ringleaders were condemned to be flogged. The sentence was, however, remitted in deference to public opinion.’ Some officers of rank are reported to have refused to allow themselves to be polluted by Pagan ceremonies. Valentinian is said to have been banished for contemptuously shaking off the lustral water, with which a Pagan priest had sprinkled him; but the truth of this narrative is, to say the least, questionable.? Julian aimed a far more serious blow at the Christians by his educational policy. No edict adverse to the Chris- tians is found in the Theodosian code, but a rescript prohibiting Christians from teaching the classics appears in the collection of Julian’s epistles. On 12 May, 362, he enacted a law confirming doctors of medicine and professors in their existing immunities from the public burthens.2 This was followed by an edict ordering that no professor should be allowed to teach till he had been examined as to his competence, and his appointment had been sanctioned by the curiales, with the consent and confirmation of the optimi. This might in some cases prevent, the appointment of Christians as public teachers, but it could not do any serious harm. The date of the famous educational rescript is uncertain, but the most probable view is that it was promulgated after Julian had been soured by his visit to Antioch.‘ Educational policy. 1. Sozomen, v. 17. 2. Theodoret, H. £. 111. 12; a somewhat late authority for an imperial conxession of Christ! 3. Julian, Hf. 41. Rendall, p. 205. For a most valuable account of the educational system of this period see Gaston Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, bk. u1., ‘Le Christianisme et l’éducation romaine.’ 4. ‘‘Issued” says Mr. Rendall ‘‘June 17, shortly before Julian’s arrival at Antioch.”—p. 207. Cod. Theod., xiii., t. 3, 1. 5. 368 ATHANASIUS BANISHED. (CH. Xv, After a preamble setting forth the duty of every professor to practise virtue, and to teach the desirability of honesty to his disciples, Julian points out the extreme dishonesty of teaching what one does not believe. The Christian teachers of classical literature, who do not believe in the gods, are therefore called dishonest men, who for the sake of a few pence stifle their convictions. The religious terrorism, says Julian, practised by the Christian emperors in the past, forced many worthy men to hide their real opinions; but, as now there is no excuse for this, those who teach Homer and Hesiod must believe in the immortal gods. If they refuse from conscientious motives, “‘let them” says Julian “ go to the churches of the Galilaeans and expound Matthew and Luke.” No act of Julian’s caused more indignation. The very Pagans condemned it.) From what we can gather from other sources we see that it was rigidly enforced, and that it succeeded in driving the Christian professors from the schools. Proaeresius, the master of Julian at Athens, rejected the Emperor’s assurance that he should be unmolested, and resigned his chair.? The two Apollinarii at Laodicaea set to work to construct classical text-books, modelled on the ancient works, for their Christian scholars;* Victorinus, the great master of eloquence at Rome, refused to desert the cause of God, and retired from the schools.‘ 3 ; One Christian teacher was the subject julian and of Julian’s special animosity. Athanasius had returned to Alexandria, after the riot in which his predecessor, the infamous George, had been murdered. In September, 362, he had held a small but very important council, which had contributed greatly to the union of the Church, and he had also baptized some Pagan ladies.’ Julian saw in the veteran bishop too dangerous an enemy to the cause of Hellenism to be 1. Ammianus (XXII. 10) says of the edict that ‘‘it must be plunged into everlasting silence”. Rendall, p. 212. 2. Rendall, p. 215. 3. Socrates, 111. 16; Sozomen, v. 18, who says that Gregory of Nazianzum joined in this work. ” 4- See Augustine, Confess. v111. 2, for the conversion of Victorinus er. 5. Julian, Hp. 6,51. Index to Festal Letters, XXXV. cH. xv.) | THE CHI AND THE KAPPA. 369 suffered to remain at Alexandria. and ordered the Alexandrians to expel him forthwith, threatening them with penalties if they disobeyed. He wrote to Ecdicius, the praefect, ordering him to chase Athanasius from Egypt. Words fail him to describe his hatred of the bishop, and the letter ends curtly with the significant word dvaxeic0w. The Alexandrians petitioned in favour of their bishop, and in reply Julian wrote to contrast the works of Jesus with the splendid deeds of Alexander and the Ptolemies.! Athanasius was forced into exile, but prophesied as he fled that this was a little cloud which would soon pass over. The Emperor’s death verified his prediction and enabled him to return in peace.’ : Before, however, continuing the record endurediviuiian, of acts which betray Julian’s hostility against the Church, it may be well to give a short description of the provocations suffered by him during his sojourn at the Christian city of Antioch. The serious and earnest Pagan emperor and the populace of the pleasure-loving Antioch with Christian sympathies, were very soon at irreconcileable enmity. In May, 362, Julian passed from Europe to Asia, and after a long progress through Asia Minor arrived at Antioch early in July. The polished but effeminate population of the capital of the East cared nothing for military glory, nor for the manly virtues which Julian had displayed in Gaul, preferring Con- stantius, with his many vices but stately bearing and splendid retinue, to the philosophic hero’s undignified appearance and dirty beard. In their own words, they preferred the Chi and Kappa (Xpioros and Kwvorayvtios) to Julian.’ Julian’s sojourn at Antioch was one con- tinued disappointment. Owing to the fact that forces were being massed there for the Persian campaign,‘ famine prices prevailed in the city; and in order to prevent 1. Julian, 2. 6, 26, 51. The language the Emperor uses in regard to Athanasius, ovdé dvhp adX’ dvOpwrloxos evredjs, K.T.A.y is unworthy alike of a prince and a philosopher. 2. Rufinus, 1. 34. Rendall, p. 194. 3. Julian, ALtsopogon, 357, 70 Xt, paclv, ovdév Hdlknoe Thy worw, ovde 7d Kadrra. 4 Socrates, 111. 18. AA 370 THE SHRINE AT DAPHNE. [cH. xv. corn being sold for an excessive price the Emperor unwisely decreed a fixed rate, and imported 22,000 modii from the neighbouring granaries, and even from Egypt. The grain was bought in the open market by large speculators, who evaded the law and sold it to the people at famine prices, thereby increasing the distress. The municipal senate protested; and Julian, strong in the consciousness of the purity of his motives, and unwilling to own his mistake, ordered many of the principal persons in Antioch to be arrested. Though they were soon liberated, the insult was not readily forgiven. f The religion of the Emperor was as unpopular as his policy. The glory of Pagan Antioch was the Temple of Apollo at Daphne. The Emperor on visiting the celebrated shrine found it completely deserted save by one old priest, who informed him that he had nothing to offer to the god but a goose. Julian proceeded to restore the fallen worship to its former glories, and ordered the oracular spring of Castalia to be reopened, though it had been for centuries blocked up in consequence of its having revealed to Hadrian the secret that he would one day be master of the Empire. But the oracle was dumb, and no sound could be extracted by sacrifices and libations save the cry “The Dead, the Dead!” It was supposed | that this was due to the presence of the bones of St. Babylas, bishop of Antioch, who had been martyred under Diocletian. They were removed, and the Chris- tians made the ceremony an occasion for a demonstration. The procession, in defiance of the wrath of the Emperor, sang the words of the Psalmist, “ Confounded be they that worship carved images.’”? The Temple of Daphne was burnt soon after this riot, and, as the fire was said to have been caused by the Christians, a youth by name Theodore was tortured on the rack for a whole day by Sallustius, the praetorian praefect.2. The great church of Antioch seems to have also been closed at this time. Two soldiers, I, Sozomen, v.19; Rufinus, I. 35; Rendall, p.194. Ps. xevii. 7 (P.B.) 2. Socrates, 111. 19, who says he had the story from Rufinus (1. 36). Sozomen, v. 20. Theodoret, III. 7. CH. XV.]} THE MISOPOGON. 371 by name Juventinus and Maximus, are said by Chry- sostom to have been put to death for quoting Scripture against Julian in a tavern. They suffered nominally for treasonable language aud insolence to their officers. But it is vastly to Julian’s credit that he never revenged the irritating insults of the people of Antioch by any great severity. Many a Roman emperor, secure in the adherence of a devoted army, would have condemned the turbulent but effeminate mob of Antioch to the horrors of a massacre. Julian bore their taunts in silence, and contented himself with a strange revenge. He composed a satire on the inhabitants of Antioch, called the Misopogon or Beard-hater, from the ridicule which they had directed against his hirsute appearance. The work is a monument of the wit, the humanity, and the absence of judgment, of the Emperor. He placed himself in a false position by bandying satirical pamphlets with his subjects; but we cannot but admire the spirit which could satisfy itself with so harmless a vengeance. For Julian, as his letters from Antioch testify, felt the behaviour of the Christian mob of that city acutely. We cannot fail to notice how his patience gradually failed him, and that his once impartial toleration began to disappear. In his letter to the people of Bostra, whose bishop Titus tried to prevent a collision between the Pagans and Christians, Julian advises that the bishop be chased from the city by the inhabitants, whom he had slandered by reporting their conduct.? This meanness of spirit, which could thus turn a good action of a bishop into an inducement for the mob to eject him, is equally noticeable in Julian’s letter to Edessa. The Arians had attacked the Valentinians, and many outrages had been committed. Julian wrote to Hecebolius confiscating the entire property of the Church, handing the funds to the soldiery, and the land to the fiscus. “In this way” he adds sneeringly “they will learn prudence in poverty, and not lose that heavenly kingdom they still hope for.’ Julian’s patience gives way. I. Theodoret, m1. 41, Chrysostom composed a sermon in their honour. artulian, 2p. §2. 3. :Id., itp. 53: AA 2 372 RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA [cH. xv. The murder of George of Alexandria Attacks on the was as atrocious as it was deserved. The disreputable pork-contractor, who had been made bishop of Alexandria in place of Athanasius, — had behaved with rapacity and violence. Not only had he oppressed and persecuted the followers of his exiled predecessor, but he had insulted the Pagans by ridiculing their temples as sepulchres, and parading through the streets the obscene and ridiculous objects used in the Mithras worship. In 362 the mob arose and murdered the bishop, and after exhibiting his mangled corpse on a camel, they burnt it and cast the ashes into the sea. ‘Though the Emperor indicted a severe reproof to the Alexandrians, he dwelt so much on the crimes of George that he created the fatal impression that similar acts might be perpetrated with impunity. Nor did the Pagans fail to in- terpret the wishes of the Emperor in accordance with their own desires! At Heliopolis the heathen revenged the conversion of the temple of Venus into a church, by murdering Christian virgins and throwing their entrails to the pigs. At Gaza, three brothers, Eusebius, Nestabus, and Zeno, were martyred by the mob.’ According to one account, Julian was seriously angry at this outrage; but Sozomen says that he re- marked “What need to arrest the fellows for retaliating © on a few Galilaeans for all the wrongs they have done to the gods?” At Dorostolus, in Thrace, St. Aemilian was burned alive for ‘sacrilege’.* St. Basil, a young presbyter of Ancyra, was accused of seditious preaching and insulting the idols. He was brought before Julian and condemned by him to have seven strips flayed from his body every day. He flung one of them in the Emperor’s face, crying “Take, Julian, the food you relish.” On the departure of Julian from 1. Julian, Z. 10; Socrates, 111. 3. _‘* You will, no doubt,” writes the Emperor, ‘‘ be ready to say that George justly merited his chastisement ; and we might be disposed perhaps to admit that he deserved still more acute torture !” 2. Sozomen, vV. 10, 3. Sozomen, Vv. 9. 4. Rendall, p. 180. CH. Xv.] © DEATH OF JULIAN. 373 Ancyra he was put to death.! Several persons who richly deserved punishment were enrolled among the martyrs, notably George of Alexandria, and Artemius the military praefect of Egypt, who is said to have suffered death for his zeal against the idols, but who merited a worse punishment than beheading, for having supported George in his iniquities and extortions. Julian, not content with opposing hoian’s Christianity as an emperor, entered the the Christians, lists as a literary critic of the Church; and so great was the influence of his book, that Cyril, bishop of Alexandria a full generation after his death, found it necessary to refute his arguments. The book has a singularly modern tone, owing to Julian’s having, unlike most ancient opponents of Christianity, a considerable knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. He sees traces of polytheism in the religion of ancient Israel; he notices the differences between St. John’s Gospel and the three earlier ones; he declares Christianity to be a mingling of the worst elements of Hellenism and Judaism. He ridicules the story of the Fall of Man. Libanius considered it a better refutation of Christianity than that by fae ae sa Ne a : n March 5, 363, Julian left Antioch oe ton his Gees ae against Persia. The details of the war need not be here related ; suffice it to say that Julian shewed that he still possessed the virtues of a soldier, but forgot that the part of a hero trying to equal Alexander the Great was fraught with disaster to the enfeebled empire of Rome. His death, and the retreat of the Roman army after ceding provinces to Persia, form a melancholy sequel to the noble promise of his early career. Julian’s life and reign had proved conclusively 1. Sozomen, Vv. 1%. The scars of the martyr had miraculously disappeared when he was brought to execution. ‘*A marvel which” says Mr. Rendall ‘‘might cause temporary uneasiness to the most credulous.” The acts of the martyrdom are in Ruinart. 2. Gaston Boissier, p. 128. The arguments of Julian against Christianity have been collected by Newman. Glover, Lz/e and Letters in the Fourth Century, ; 374 FAILURE OF PAGANISM. (CH. Xv. that Christianity must of necessity be the religion of the Empire. His attempt to reconstruct Paganism had but demonstrated the incurable weakness and rottenness of the old religion. Though he may never have uttered them, the words put into his mouth by the Christian historian are true:—‘ Thou hast conquered, O Galilaean.”” 1. Theodoret, 111%. 203; Sozomen, vi. 2 Julian is said to have upbraided the sun. The note on the passage in Theodoret, Wicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, points out that qrdrnkas Ate is not very dissimilar in sound to the exclamation reported by that historian, CHAPTER XVI. CONCLUSION OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY IN THE EMPIRE. THe reign of Julian was but an Survey of affairs interlude in the struggle by which the : wr seen rr% * Church was distracted. For a short time the contending parties paused to avert a common disaster, but no sooner was the danger over than they resumed hostilities. The death of Constantius was the real turning point in the controversy; since had he lived for another twenty years, Homoean Arianism might have been so firmly established as the official creed of the Empire,! that nothing but a serious revolution could ever have displaced it. That emperor’s sudden death in a.p. 361 checked the Arianizers in the very moment of their triumph, for the withdrawal of external pressure in favour of any particular formula of belief gave everybody the opportunity of declaring himself under his true colours, A survey of Christian opinion at this time in the different parts of the Roman world will at once explain the situation of the various parties. In the Western division of the Empire The West adheres al] forms of Arianism had been merely of to the ; : Nicene Greed. CXOtic growth, and it was only by fraud or violence that any formula save that of Nicaea had ever been adopted. If at the Councils of Milan and Ariminum the Westerns had proved unfaithful to Saint Athanasius and the MHomdousion, it was due to the fear of imperial displeasure, and still more to the 1, Athanasius says expressly that the Arian chiefs considered the Chyrch a mere department of state, voulfovres rodtrelay Bovd#s elvar Thy éxxdnolav. Ad Monachos, quoted by Canon Jenkins, 376 THE WEST REPUDIATES ARIANISM. [cu. xv1, dexterous party management of Ursacius and Valens. No sooner therefore did the news of the death of Con- stantius become public than the Occidental bishops reverted to their old allegiance. The apostasy of Ariminum had no permanent effects; Liberius returned to Rome to teach the doctrine which he had in a moment of weakness repudiated. From henceforth the Nicene formula was firmly established in the Western portion of the Empire, which was fortunate after Julian’s death in enjoying the advantage of the govern- ment of an emperor who abstained from interfering with religious belief. Valentinian, who was chosen emperor after the brief and inglorious reign of Jovian, took up his abode in the Western provinces, leaving the Eastern countries to the care of his brother and colleague, Valens. Though a Christian by conviction, Valentinian maintained the strictest impartiality in matters of religion, ruling his subjects with a justice marred only by occasional outbursts of severity.” The Christians of Egypt, under the Athanasius influence of their great but persecuted and the Council jeader Athanasius, were faithful to the A.D.362. orthodox cause. Since his expulsion from Alexandria in a.p. 356 Athanasius had been a wanderer, at one time taking refuge amongst the solitaries in the desert, at another visiting his — adherents in secret; perhaps actually present during part of the synod of Ariminum, and once the guest of a Christian virgin of great beauty, who protected the champion of Nicaea by concealing him from his enemies. George of Cappadocia, the Arian bishop of Alexandria, fell a victim to the fury of the pagan mob, which his indiscreet language had provoked, and when Athanasius returned under the edict of Julian permitting all exiled bishops to come back to their homes, he was able to hold a small but most important council at Alexandria, resulting in a complete understanding between the 1. Gwatkin, Studzres of Arianism, p. 181. Even before the breach between Julian and Constantius the Gaulish bishops had met at Paris to ratify the Nicene faith and excommunicate the Western Arians. 2. Gwatkin, Studzes of Arianism, p. 227. De Broglie, L’Eglise et PEmpire, vol. 1., p. 12. CH. XVI.] SUBSTANTIA AND PERSONA. 377 Western and Eastern supporters of the Nicene Creed. The former had no adequate equivalents for the terms ovcla and wmootacis, used by the Greeks to designate the one essence of the Trinity and the special personality belonging to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Athanasius, who understood Latin, was able to appreciate the position of the Occidentals, and to persuade them to agree that substantia, which they had previously used to render vmoctacts, should from henceforth be the equiva- lent of ovota, and that the word persona should be the accepted rendering of tzroatacts.’ The Eastern provinces were destined The Semi-Arians to be in the first instance the battle-field ant Bevias:: of the Arian controversy. Here public opinion may be described as being inclined to orthodoxy, but preferring the creed of Antioch to that of Nicaea. ‘This phase of opinion was represented by bishops like Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Eustathius of Sebaste, as well as by prelates like Gregory bishop of Nazianzus, whose son and name- sake is celebrated as one of the greatest theologians of the Eastern Church. These, having suffered at the hands of the Homoeans, who shewed no mercy to their former allies after their triumphs at Ariminum and Seleucia,? were drawing closer to the adherents of the Nicene symbol. They were encouraged in this by Hilary, bishop of Poictiers in Gaul, whose strenuous adherence to the Aoméousion has won for him the title of ‘the Athanasius of the West’. Hilary, after being condemned in 356 by a council at Biterrae, held by command of Constantius under the auspices of the Caesar Julian, had been banished to Asia Minor, where 1. The decrees of the Council of Alexandria are given in a Zome or letter to the Church of Antioch published in the works of Athanasius and used by Rufinus, 4. Z. x. 29. Socrates (111. 7) wrongly says that this council refused to apply the terms ousza and hyfostaszs to God, and gives an interesting account of the use of the word hyfostaszs. Sozomen, V. 12; Jerome, adv. Lucif. 20; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 207; Hefele, Councils, vol. 11., p. 277 (Eng. Transl.); Prolegomena to Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. \viii. 2. At the Acacian synod of Constantinople, at which Macedonius, Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and others were deposed. Socrates, Il. 38—42; Sozomen, Iv. 24. See Hefele, Coumczls, vol. 11., p. 271. 378 LUCIFER CAUSES A SCHISM. (CH. XVI. he found the Semi-Arian party more in sympathy with his opinions than he had expected, and was able to exercise much influence without obtruding himself into their councils! As the flight of Athanasius to Rome resulted in securing the support of the West for the cause of Nicaea, so did Hilary’s banishment contribute to win over the Asiatic provinces. ; An unfortunate display of excessive The Schism of eal for orthodoxy on the part of Lucifer, bishop of Calaris in Sardinia, hindered the restoration of a complete understanding between the Asiatic, Alexandrian, and Roman Churches. Soon after the Synod of Alexandria this energetic champion of the Nicene faith went to Antioch, where he found that Meletius, who had been appointed bishop by the Arians, had publicly preached in favour of the Nicene Creed and had been acknowledged as bishop by some of the orthodox, who were satisfied with his ministrations.? Lucifer, however, refused to recognise Meletius, and attached himself to the party which, since the deposition of Eustathius in 330, had pre- ferred separation to communicating with bishops of doubtful orthodoxy. The consecration of Paulinus by Lucifer made the breach irreparable, and for a long time the Church of Antioch was divided between the > supporters of Meletius, who had the sympathy of the prelates of the East, and those of Paulinus, whom Alexandria and Rome agreed in acknowledging as the lawful bishop. 1. Hefele, Cousczls, vol. 11., p. 216. Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 150 and 164—166, on the De Synoedis, written by Hilary before the acceptance of the creed of Nicé. He was present at Seleucia. Hilary was especially impressed by such Semi-Arians as Eleusius, Eustathius, and Basil of Ancyra. Newman, Arians, p. 229. 2. Meletius, on being translated from Sebastia in Armenia to Antioch, was ordered by Constantius to preach on the crucial passage Kupros éxricé pe, Prov. viii. 22. His exposition of the text was Nicene. For this he was sent into exile. Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 183. Theodoret (II. 27) speaks of him with deep respect, and Gregory of Nyssa, who preached his funeral oration, alludes to ‘‘the sweet calm look, the radiant smile, the kind hand seconding the kind voice” of Meletius. . On the conduct of Lucifer, who was not present at Alexandria, see WVicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Proleg. to Athanasius, p. lviii. CH. XVI.] SEMI-ARIANS APPROACH ROME. 379 Jd ake rele The Emperor Valentinian received Velene the purple on February 26, 364, and on March 29th he associated his brother Valens in the Empire, assigning to him the Eastern provinces. Valens, inferior to his brother both in character and ability, was a well-meaning and indus- trious man, who might have filled a subordinate place with credit, but was unfitted for the heavy responsibility of empire. In his ecclesiastical policy Valens endeavoured to continue that of Constantius, but he lacked the prestige of birth which had made the last surviving son of Constantine so potent in religious matters. Valens fixed his residence at Con- stantinople, now completely under Arian influences, the bishop being Eudoxius, the predecessor of Meletius in the see of Antioch. His successor was Demophilus, the last Arian bishop of the imperial city.} eae The Semi-Arians induced Valen- Lampsacas, timian to allow a synod to be held at Lampsacus in the autumn of 364, at which the bishops assembled pronounced the Son to be like to the Father as regards His Essence (éuo.os Kat ovciav). Valens, however, influenced by Eudoxius, who persuaded him to accept Arian baptism in 367, reprimanded Eleusius of Cyzicus and the bishops at Lampsacus for presuming to despatch Eustathius of Sebaste on an embassy to Liberius, the bishop of Rome, promising to accept the Nicene Faith. In the year 305 an imperial rescript was put forth com- manding the municipalities to drive out all those bishops who, having been banished by Constantius, had availed themselves of Julian’s permission to return.’ Athanasius had to leave Alexandria for the fifth time 1. Prof. Gwatkin (0. czt., p. 234) attributes Valens’s policy partly to the religious condition of the Eastern Provinces, ‘‘upon the whole the Homoean policy was the easiest for the moment,” and partly to the influence of Eudoxius and the Empress Dominica. 2. Sozomen (VI. 7) gives a good account of the synod. The deputies met Valens as he was returning from Heraclea to Thrace. (Socrates, tv. 4.) For the date of the council see Prof. Gwatkin’s Studies of Arianism, Note M. For the embassy to Rome, Hefele, Coumczls, § 88. Eng. Transl. 380 FIFTH EXILE OF ATHANASIUS. [cH. XVI. during his long episcopate, but was very soon restored to his flock.’ | The position of Valens was, however, soaton the t° precarious for him to imitate Con- Gothic War, stantius in expelling the great leaders 865-368. of the Christian Church. In September, 365, Procopius, a kinsman of Julian, claimed the Empire, and Valens was only saved by the firmness of his generals and the timidity of his rival.2 The first of the wars with the Goths in this reign occupied the years 367 and 368, ending in favour of the Romans, and resulting in a treaty between Valens and the Gothic leader Athanaric, made on a boat in the middle of the river Danube. But until Valens was freed from his serious political anxieties, he was unable to interfere actively in matters of religion.® This emperor is accused of having been a party to a serious crime, which, if the charge were true, would place him among the worst of his persecuting pre- decessors. It is reported that he allowed Modestus, the praefect, to put eighty of the orthodox clergy on board a vessel, which was burned and deserted by the crew, who had received orders to leave the passengers to their fate. Happily, however, the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a belief that Valens was guilty.4 During the persecution of the Nicene Faith under Valens a new generation of theologians arose in Asia Minor of a very different type to those of the time-serving Eusebian or vacillating Semi-Arian party. Three men of strong The Cappadocian Fathers. 1. Meletius also returned to Antioch. The revolt of Procopius was no doubt the reason why they were restored. Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 238. 2. Ammian. XXVI. 10. 3. Procopius’s army was defeated at. Nacolia in Phrygia. De Broglie (L’ Egiise e¢ 7 Empire, p. 7) remarks that this rebellion was prejudicial to the extreme Arians, as Eunomius was a partisan of Procopius. 3. Dr. Hodgkin (Znvaders of Italy, vol. 1., pp. 160—183) describes this scene and gives an account of the oration of Themistius. The story is told by Socrates (IV. 16) and Theodoret (Iv. 24). Prof. Gwatkin does not accept it, partly on account of the enormity of the crime, partly because there is no contemporary evidence, and also because Modestus subsequently enjoyed the friendship of Basil. (Studzes of Arianism, note N.) | CH. XVI.] THE THREE CAPPADOCIANS. 381 individuality and great personal holiness, knit together by ties alike of blood and friendship, appeared on the scene, and by their efforts the Eastern Church declared finally in favour of the Nicene doctrine. Gregory of Nazianzus and the two brothers, Basil bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and Gregory bishop of Nyssa, share the credit of removing all difficulties experienced by the Christians of Asia Minor and Syria in accepting the dogma of the consubstantiality of the Son. This remarkable trio belonged to the Christian aristocracy of their province. Gregory was the son of the bishop of Nazianzus, Basil and his brother the grandsons of a lady named Macrina, who with her husband had suffered in the days of the Diocletian persecution. Their parents—Basil an eminent advocate, and his wife Emmelia—were Christians of wealth and position. The eldest sister, named Macrina after her grandmother, was deeply religious, and it was due to her influence that Basil determined to abandon a secular career.} In addition to the advantage of the influence of Christian homes, the three young Cappadocians enjoyed that of the best education of the age. Gregory with his brother Caesarius left Nazianzus to study at Caesarea in Palestine, and afterwards became the pupil of Didymus the Blind, master of the famous Catechetical School at Alexandria. Finally he went to Athens, where he was joined by Basil, whom his influence saved from those annoyances which have at all times beset a new-comer on entering a society of youthful students. Julian was at Athens at the time, and the future emperor appreciated the abilities of Basil, who was making for himself a great reputation as a student under Himerius and Proaeresius.? On their return to their homes both Ascetic life Gregory and Basil were attracted by the of Gregory ; : Sud Basil. ascetic lives of some of the more earnest Christians of their time. Gregory settled near his home at Nazianzus and became a fervent 1. Gregory of Nyssa, Lzfe of Macréna (his sister). Basil, like Timothy, learned about God from his grandmother, Macrina, Z. ccxxiii., § 3. 2. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Prolegomena to Basil. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratzo XLIII. 382 THE. PAILOCALI“A SS [CH. XVI. ascetic, not, however, entirely abandoning all human duties; for we find him complaining that the dis- tractions of life and troubles with servants hindered his spiritual progress.’ Basil, on the other hand, having visited the famous solitaries in the Egyptian deserts, in Palestine and in Coele-Syria, returned to Asia Minor prepared to organize religious communities, and to assist his friend Eustathius of Sebaste in introducing monasticism.2, He himself settled at Annesi, where his father had possessed an estate; and a friendly and even playful correspondence took place between Basil and Gregory, who was invited to join his retreat. The two when companions in asceticism occupied them- selves in completing the collection of the best passages of Origen known as the Philocalia. i But Basil was not fitted for the Soudeie peaceful life of an ascetic student, and his active and masterful disposition drove him to take part in the ecclesiastical politics of his age. If it was his misfortune to be compelled to sever many friendships he had formed, owing to his associates proving unworthy of his confidence, it was probably an advantage to him to have been acquainted with men of widely different views. Julian’s apostasy, the vacillations of Eustathius of Sebaste between orthodoxy and Arianism, and the heresy of Apollinarius, all cost him friends, but taught him valuable lessons. We find him in A.D. 359 accompanying the bishops Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste on an embassy to Constantius from the Synod of Seleucia,‘ and leaving his home at Caesarea because the bishop Dianius signed the creed of Nicé. It is pleasing, however, to 1. Dict. Christian Biog., art. ‘Gregory of Nazianzus’. He says of his retreat tpdrwv yap elvat Thy poviv, ob cwudtwv. Carnien de Vita sua. 2. ‘* Inside Mount Taurus the movement came chiefly from the Semi- Arian side. Eustathius of Sebastia has the doubtful credit of starting it in Pontus.” Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 231, on the rise of asceticism. 3. Basil, 4%. xiv.; Gregory of Nazianzus, Z/. ii. Basil was keenly alive to the beauties of nature. 4. According to the Prolegomena to Basil, Wicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, the presence of Basil of Ancyra rests on the authority of Gregory of Nyssa, and of Philostorgius, the Arian historian. CH. xvi] BASIL EXARCH OF PONTUS. 383 record that Basil returned to his native town, and that Dianius died completely reconciled to him.’ So great was his popularity at this time, that he was able on the death of Dianius (A.D. 362) to influence the election to the metropolitan see of Caesarea in favour of his friend Eusebius, by whom he was made a priest. (A.D. 364.) Basil’s relations with his bishop were not always friendly, but he was ultimately reconciled to him by the kindly help of his friend Gregory.? } When Eusebius died in a.p. 370 Basil a hele of did not shrink from undertaking to fill Caesarea. § his placé, and by the strenuous efforts of his friends he was placed in the high position of Metropolitan of Cappadocia and Exarch of Pontus, which he held for nine years. He set himself to reform the state of his diocese, and province—the latter including Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, and the Greater and Lesser Armenia.* He discovered that great irregularities prevailed in the matter of ordina- tions, and was specially troubled by a fanatical deacon named Glycerius, who seems to have combined the Corybantic excesses of his native land with Christian worship.4 Basil devoted much time to the work of regulating the monastic system, and extensive charit- able institutions sprang up under his fostering care. Round the church so many buildings arose for the benefit of the needy,—hospitals, workshops, and the like,—that these received the name of the New City,* and Basil’s view of the way in which the rich ought 1. Basil, Zp. 51. 2. Several of the bishops objected to the election of Eusebius and were ready to put Basil in his place; to avoid this, Basil retired to his monasteries in Pontus. Prolegomena to Basil, Mzcene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Qe XX: 3. For the localities mentioned in connexion with Basil, see Ramsay’s Historical Geography of Asia Minor. 4. Prof. Ramsay in his Church and the Roman Empire, ch. xviii., suggests that these excesses were before the time of Basil a not uncommon part of ‘‘ a great religious meeting” in Asia Minor. 5. Basil’s Ptochotropheion, as it was termed, consisted of a church, a palace for the bishop, lodgings for the clergy, for the workmen employed in the works, and for the poor; a hospital for lepers was also established. Greg. Naz., Orat. xx.; Dict. Chr. Biog., art.‘ Basil’. Prolegomena to Basil (p. xxi) quotes Prof. Ramsay, Church and the Roman Eipire, p. 464: ‘The New City of Basil seems to have caused the gradual concentration 284 VALENS VISITS CAESAREA. (CH. xvI, to contribute to the necessities of the poor was so com- prehensive that he has been claimed as a forerunner of modern socialism.’ The displeasure of an Arian emperor like Valens at such energy displayed by an orthodox prelate was much dreaded by Basil’s friends, and when in a.p. 371 the court travelled through Asia Minor on its way to Antioch, a conflict seemed inevitable. The Emperor himself was by no means easy in his mind as to the result, and Modestus the praefect was sent to persuade Basil by alternate threats and arguments to make the imperial visit acceptable by conforming to the Emperor’s wishes.? It is needless to say that the bishop’s attitude was perfectly unbending. Euippus, a Galatian bishop, was excommunicated for daring to suggest that Basil should, at any rate for this occasion, modify his views; and when, in the presence of Valens, the imperial cook Demosthenes tried to influence him by threats, he was scornfully reminded that the place for an “‘illiterate Demosthenes” was the kitchen. When however Valens came all went well. It is said that the Emperor had intended to banish Basil, but, when his infant son fell ill, and was restored to health by the bishop’s prayers, Valens seems to have relented, and not only did not molest the bishop of Caesarea, but admired his extensive works of charity and contributed to their maintenance.® It is possible, however, that three years later Basil felt the effects of the imperial displeasure in the decree by which Valens divided the Basil and Valens. of the entire population of Caesarea round the ecclesiastical centre, and the abandonment of the old city. Modern Kaisari is situated between one and two miles from the site of the Graeco-Roman city.” 1. The Prolegomena to Basil, Mzcene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. xvii, refers to the Mew Party, in 1894, pp. 82 and 83. On p. xlvii Basil’s Sermon on Ps. xiv. (xv. in A.V.) against usury is given, in which Basil dwells with equal force on the crime of lending and the folly of borrowing on usury for purposes of extravagance and display. 2. Modestus afterwards became a personal friend of Basil, and six letters are addressed to him: 104, 110, III, 279, 280, 281. 3. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Xx. ; Socrates, Iv. 26; Sozomen, VI. 16; Theodoret, 1v. 16. The child was baptized byan Arian, and was believed to have died in consequence. CH. xvi.] BASIL SUPPORTS HIS RIGHTS, 385 civil administration of Cappadocia by making Caesarea the capital of one portion and Tyana of the other. So closely were the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions already united, that Anthimus, bishop of Tyana, in- stantly asserted that, as metropolitan of a new province, he was independent of Basil.? Basil naturally resented any attempts to curtail the extent of his jurisdiction, and, in order to shew that his rights extended into the territory claimed by the bishop of Tyana, he nominated his brother Gregory to the bishopric of Nyssa, and his friend Gregory of Nazianzus to the see of Sasima, a wretched posting town utterly unfit for the residence of a man of devout and scholarly tastes and of a singularly sensitive nature.? Gregory yielded to the insistence of his friend, and when Eusebius of Samosata remonstrated on his ap- pointing a man like Gregory to so obscure a see, Basil wrote in terms of profuse compliment, ‘‘I wish that Gregory might govern a church as great as his genius; but his genius is so great that all the churches under the sun united in one could scarcely equal it. As this is impossible, let him consent to be bishop, not in order to receive any honour, but to honour by his presence the place of his residence. It is in fact” adds Basil “the sign of a great soul not merely to be capable of great things, but to make small things great by its own virtue.’*® Gregory did scarcely more than visit this uncongenial sphere of work, but spent most of his time in assisting his aged father at Nazianzus. He loyally supported Basil in his contest with Anthimus, but he deeply felt his unkindness in forcing him into such a position to gratify his hierarchical ambitions, and lamented in verse the ruin of a Gregory made bishop of Sasima. 1. Basil, Zp. 98. 2. Gregory of Nazianzus describes it in the Carmen de Vita sua, XI. 439—446, as a post town (ora0ués) where three ways met, without grass or water, dust everywhere, inhabited by a shifting population (féva re kal w\avw@pevo) and through which convicts and prisoners constantly passed. Gregory ends his description thus : "Avr Zacluwy rav éuay éxxdrnola. 3. Basil, ZZ. 98, addressed to Eusebius of Samosata, Basil’s intimate friend. BB 386 NICENE DOCTRINE EXPLAINED. [CH. XvL long and close friendship. As the course of events will shew, Basil’s action caused irreparable harm to the Eastern Church by preventing Gregory’s election to the see of Constantinople. If this appointment of Gregory to Sasima be considered as a mistake on the part of Basil, we cannot with justice blame him for the far- reaching consequence of his error; nor can Gregory escape the reproach of having displayed a certain selfish petulance towards his friend. In the disputes arising out of Arianism a ae the most formidable obstacles in the way East and West, Of a reunion of the Church were, firstly the distrust of Athanasian doctrines felt by the Oriental bishops, and secondly the vacillations of the Semi-Arian party under the pressure of the imperial dislike of the Nicene theology. In addition to these hindrances, the cause of unity was threatened by the schism raging at Antioch and the incapacity of the Roman See to appreciate the situation in the East. It was the work of the three Cappadocians to convince the theologians of Asia Minor and Syria that the Athanasian doctrine was the right one, and that, to those who clearly distinguished between Substance (ovcia) and Person (é7récracis), all errors of a Sabellian type are rendered impossible.? The Semi-Arian party had, in 367, united outwardly with the orthodox believers at the synod of Tyana; but such men as Basil’s friend Eustathius of Sebaste were a perpetual cause of trouble to him, and when the breach between them occurred, Eustathius sought to do Basil all the injury in his power 3. Carmen de Vita sua— mévoe Kowvol Adywr dudoreyds re Kal cuvécrios Blos, vous els ev GUOUD........... 20. Siecxédacra Tadra Kdppirra xaual, avpat pépovot ras madaas éAmldas. 2. ‘The principal chiefs were the three eminent Cappadocian bishops, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa. But their teaching in reality modified the aspect of the Nicene formulas. The term Ayfostaszs, instead of being a synonym of wsza, was used to designate a person or personal subject, in distinction from Substance. This use of the term became current in the East.” Fisher, Wzstory of Christian Doctrine, p- 143. . | CH. xv1.] BASIL AND ATHANASIUS, 387 by publishing a letter which the latter had written years before to the heretic Apollinarius ‘as a layman to a layman”. Nor was Basil altogether happy in the attempt made by his too officious friend Gregory of Nazianzus to vindicate his reputation for orthodoxy in his treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost.} To these troubles was added the difficulty of obtaining the assistance of the Roman See to allay the quarrels of Eastern Christendom. ‘The Roman bishop, Damasus, was resolved to support Paulinus at Antioch against Meletius, and seems to have resented Basil’s presumption in addressing him on equal terms, whilst Basil himself complains of the superciliousness of the West (ths dutuxys oppvos).2 A few letters passed between Basil and Athanasius, in which the bishop of Caesarea asked the help of the veteran champion of orthodoxy to assist him in pacifying the Church. Basil’s statesmanlike mind is well shewn in the following remark in one of his letters to Athanasius: “ We require” said he “men firm but kindly, who will shun causing new divisions by not unduly insisting on disputed points.’’® Death of After an episcopate of forty-seven years, Athanasius, | during which he had been on no less than A.D. 378. five different occasions exiled for the Faith, His character. Athanasius passed away. It is difficult to divest ourselves of preconceived notions in forming an estimate of his character. Posterity has either seen in him only the saint whom it is profane to judge asa man, or regards him solely from a modern standpoint, 1. Basil, Z/. 223 to Eustathius of Sebaste, who accused him of favouring Apollinarius because he had written to him twenty years before. De Broglie (L’Zglise e¢ 2Empire) refers to Greg. Naz., Zp. 58, Basil, fp. 71. ; 2 The chief letters of Basil on this subject are Zf. 70, which bears no address but was evidently intended for Damasus, Z//. 242, 243, to the Western bishops, and 239, where he complains to his friend Eusebius of Samosata of the ignorance and prejudices of Damasus, whom however he does not name. 3. Basil’s letters to Athanasius are 61, 66, 68, 69. Marcellus of Ancyra is complained of, but it is satisfactory to know that Athanasius would not condemn the aged champion of Nicaea. ‘‘Even the great Alexandrian’s comprehensive charity” says Professor Gwatkin ‘‘is hardly nobler than his faithfulness to erring friends.” It is this chivalrous loyalty that makes Athanasius so much more attractive a character than Basil. BB 2 388 CHARACTER OF ATHANASIUS, (CH. xvI.. considering him as the type of those ecclesiastics who have fettered the Faith by the imposition of unnecessary dogmas, and barred the way to heaven by the invention of unscriptural tests. Those, however, who take the latter view of his character must bear in mind that neither the Arian controversy nor the word opoovetos were originated by him, since when Arius and Alexander began their theological dispute he was a boy, and when the Creed was framed he was of no higher rank than that of a deacon. The controversy was one in which no Christian individual in the fourth century could avoid taking part, least of all the great pope of Alexandria, who was second only to the bishop of Rome in ecclesiastical status. It was moreover, at any rate till 361, a controversy out of which hardly a single great bishop except Julius of Rome emerged with credit, and he died before the keenest phase of the struggle had begun. Of Athanasius it may safely be said not only that he never vacillated in his belief, but that in no single instance does he seem to have been actuated by personal malice; though the treatment he experienced at the hands of the Mareotic commission and the council of Tyre might well have provoked him to retaliation. Moreover, though his long career was spent in controversy on a single point in theology, there is no sign either of narrowness or bigotry in his character. So far from cultivating a pedantic adherence to mere phrases and catch-words, Athanasius was singularly careful not to offend in this respect; and it is worth noticing that throughout his theological writings the test word ooovovos occurs very rarely.1 His frank willingness to welcome a former opponent to his side is an attractive feature in his character, and no one knew better how to smooth the path by which men could return from error to orthodoxy. The charm of his personal influence can only be estimated by its effect on others. Even Constantius could not resist it when Athanasius was present with him; and it is said that he was as much at home with the solitaries of the desert 1. Preface to the four discourses against the Arians. Vicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 303; see also Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. xviil. CH, xvI.] GREATNESS OF ATHANASIUS, 389 and the working people of Alexandria as he was in the courts of emperors or in synods of bishops. Nor does Athanasius deserve the reproach of being the only man of his age who wished to narrow the limits of orthodoxy. In the fourth century, as the history of the Eusebian party proves, an indefinite creed was im- possible, and the genuine Arians, who were the real opponents of Athanasius, were as ready to force their dogmas on the Church as the pope of Alexandria. Without, however, pronouncing even on the relative merits of either defeated Arianism or the triumphant Faith of Nicaea, we have only to contrast the tortuous measures of his opponents with the honest consistency and fair dealing of Athanasius, to bring into clear light his immense moral superiority. Among the many great men whom the fourth century produced, Athanasius occupies a pre-eminence to which, perhaps, Ambrose of Milan alone approached.! Doctrinal Every religious controversy leaves a disputes arising fatal heritage of party rancour, and new out of the Arian subjects for disputation. By disregarding controversy. A é : the wise advice of Constantine, Alex- ander and Arius were responsible for the beginning I. It is curious to observe the diversity of judgment in regard to the character of St. Athanasius. Dean Milman (A2story of Christianity, vol. I. p. 411) says, ‘‘ Yet even now, so completely has this polemic spirit become incorporated with Christianity that the memory of Athanasius is regarded by wise and good men with reverence. ... It is impossible indeed not to admire the force of intellect which he centred on this minute point of theology, his intrepidity, his constancy ; but he had not the power to allay the feud which his inexorable spirit tended to keep alive.... Athanasius in exile would consent to no peace which did not prostrate his enemies under his feet.”” Cardinal Newman, on the other hand, in his Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 356, says ‘‘In the height of controversy he (Athanasius) speaks with temper and candour, evidences of an enlarged prudence, to say nothing of Christian charity.” See Gwatkin, Studzes of Arianism, pp. 66-70. Prolegomena to Athanasius, WVécene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. \xvil. Athanasius was no doubt “ purified and softened” by the sufferings he had endured, when he wrote in 359 ‘‘ Towards those who accept all else that was written at Nicaea, but doubt about the duoovcrov only, we ought not to behave as though they were enemies, but we argue with them as brethren with brethren, seeing they have the same mind with ourselves, but only question the name.” Hort, Zwo Dzssertations, p. 94. The late Canon Jenkins ina pamphlet on this period (publ. 1894) does justice to Athanasius, who, as he points out, in his correspondence with Basil objects to any addition to the Creed of Nicaea as a test of orthodoxy. 390 DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. [CcH. xvt. of an almost endless series of controversies, silenced only at last by the overwhelming triumphs of Islam. Macedonianism and Apollinarianism were the im- mediate offspring of Arianism; the one raising the question of the true position of the Holy Ghost in the ‘Trinity, the other that of the relation of the Human to the Divine Nature in our Saviour. In attacking the proper Divinity of the Son, the theory of Arius naturally destroyed the Divine Nature, if not the Personality of the Spirit. At Nicaea however this question was not raised, and the Council was content with demanding a simple belief in the Holy Ghost. When the Semi- Arians were being reconciled to the Nicene doctrine, the question of the consubstantial Divinity of the Holy Ghost arose; the Nicene party asserting that it was the logical result of the belief in that of the Son, whilst some of the Semi-Arians, who took their party name from Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, objected to the imposition of further tests of orthodoxy.’ —Though this controversy never assumed the dimensions of that on the relation of the Son to the Father, and aroused no great popular emotion, it caused Basil some trouble, owing to the officious though loyal partisanship of Gregory of Nazianzus. Basil desired to make the Creed as promulgated at Nicaea the sole test of orthodoxy, and was consequently accused of attaching too little importance to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. After a sermon preached on September 7, 371, on the feast of St. Eupsychius, Gregory Nazianzen betrayed to a monk his view of the prominence which should be given to teaching the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, Macedonianism. 1. The Arians taught that the Holy Spirit was, as a creation of the Son, practically a third essence in the Trinity, rd» yodr Adyor pyolv (says Athan- asius of Arius) els duoudrnra d5ééns Kal odclas addébrpLoy elvat wavTedds éxarépwv tov re Ilarépos kal rod aylov Ilvevuaros. Or. ¢. Avrianos, 1. 6. Swete, Aistory of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, p. 79, Athanasius was in 358 compelled by the rise of the Tropici in Egypt to declare his opinions on the Holy Ghost in the letters to Serapion. Swete, — op. ctt., p. 91. The Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, was the first to condemn those who deny the Divinity of the Spirit ; see Dzct. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Holy Ghost’; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 206; Hefele, Councils, vol. 11., p. 277, Eng. Transl. ae wot Ss nee < ae es > en ea a ok CH. XVI.} _ APOLLINARIANISM, 391 and attributed Basil’s reticence in the matter to his wisdom in using “economy” in declaring the truths of the Faith. This laid Basil open to an attack from the monk, and caused him much anxiety.! The subtlety of the Greek and Oriental ey ie n mind was destined to find a subject more of our Lord. {tuitful of dispute even than the mystery of the exact relationship of the Persons of the Trinity. As Arius had set the whole Church into confusion by trying to offer an explanation of the Divine Nature of the Son, so Apollinarius was the cause of an even more violent controversy by pro- pounding his theory of the way in which the Manhood was united with Godhead in the Person of the Saviour. But whereas Arius’s doctrine was the cause of an immediate explosion, that of Apollinarius seemed at first but a small spark, which only broke out into a mighty conflagration when years afterwards Nestorius attempted to refute his teaching. Apollinarius, who had taken a prominent part in trying to preserve for Christians the form of a classical education in the days of Julian, said that in the God-Man Jesus Christ the Divine Logos took the place of the rational Human Soul, so that our Lord was not truly man, but One who had the body of a living man whose impulses were solely those of the Word of God; in other words, that He was incapable not merely of yielding to, but even of feeling either human infirmity or the power of temptation.? Death of Valens Whilst a new brood of heresies were at Adrianople. thus beginning their fatal life in the Eastern Church, so far as the Roman Empire was 1. Basil’s treatise on the Spirit was written in A.D. 374, at the request of his friend and disciple Amphilochius of Iconium. De Broglie, LD ELglise et ? Empire, vol. 11., pp. 123 foll. 2. Socrates (II. 46) attributes the lapse of Apollinarius to George, the Arian bishop of Laodicaea, who persecuted him for his intimacy with Epiphanius the Sophist. Sozomen (v. 25) alludes to his early friendship with Athanasius. Theodoret, v. 3, and v.11. Basil (Zp. 129) says the impiety of Apollinarius is like that of Sabellius. There is a full account of his system in Neander, Church Hist., vol. Iv., pp. 98—106, and in Bethune-Baker, Christiau Doctrine, p. 239 f. Gwatkin (Studies of Arianism, pp. 206, 248) remarks; ‘‘If Apollinarius was forming another schism he was at least a determined enemy of Arianism.” There were two of the same name, father and son; the latter is the heresiarch. 392 DEFEAT OF THE ROMANS. (CH. XVI. concerned the Arian ‘controversy was approaching its conclusion. Valens was still persecuting the orthodox and keeping bishops like Peter of Alexandria and Meletius of Antioch away from their flocks, but the fearful catastrophe with which his life and reign terminated was approaching. The Goths, who had crossed the Danube, were roused to fury by the peculations of the Roman officials entrusted with the work of settling them within the frontiers of the empire. War broke out in 377, in which the Roman armies were at first successful, but in the great battle of Adrianople the Goths gained a complete victory and Valens perished with his army.'! Since Hannibal’s victory at Cannae the Romans-had never known such a defeat; but whereas the young and vigorous republic could rise with renewed power to crush the victorious foe, the enfeebled empire seemed to have received a fatal stroke. It says much for the immense fund of vitality still possessed by the Romans, that the empire was not allowed entirely to succumb under this crushing blow. Valentinian, who had died in 375, Pape had been succeeded by his sons, Gratian ee “he wast and Valentinian II., the former being a youth, the latter an infant under the tutelage of his mother Justina. Gratian, who under the influence of Ambrose, bishop of Milan, was the first emperor to refuse the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, acted with conspicuous wisdom and generosity in appointing as his colleague Theodosius, the son of the deliverer of Britain, who had fallen a victim to the jealousy of Valentinian.” The new Augustus, who had lived in retirement in his native Spain since the death of his father, immediately repaired to the East, and set himself to restore the shattered fortunes of the Empire. The Goths were, fortunately, too imperfectly 1. Hodgkin, Jtaly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 286. Ammianus, bk. xxxi. 2. Socrates (Iv. 19) connects the death of Theodosius—or Theodosidus as he calls him—with the inquisition into the crime of magic owing to the attempt to discover the successor of Valens. Beugnot, H/zst. du Paganisme, p- 242. Gibbon, chap. xxv. ae CH. Xv1.] BAPTISM OF THEODOSIUS, 393 civilised to reap the full fruits of their victory. They advanced on Constantinople, but were repelled by the citizens animated by the courage of the widowed Empress Dominica; nor were their forces sufficiently organized to remain together for a long campaign.} Theodosius won no brilliant victory, but patiently waited while the Gothic hosts melted away, many enlisting in the Imperial armies and being employed in distant parts of the empire. In 379 Theodosius received baptism at the hands of Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, being the first of the rulers of the East who had been admitted to the Church by an orthodox prelate.” Basil died in the year that followed ahs etd the battle of Adrianople, shortly before His character. the triumph of the cause he had served so well. His death was a most serious loss to the Church, for had the orthodox party at Constantinople had the benefit of his firmness of character and sage advice, many fatal mistakes which were committed by them in 381 might have been avoided. What must strike us most is his astonishing versatility and energy. Basil is rightly considered one of the greatest of the Fathers; in him the scholar and the theologian were combined. His short episcopate of nine years had an abiding effect on the Eastern Church. He saved monasticism from degenerating into foolish extravagance and profitless asceticism, he arranged the services of the Church, he reformed the disorders of his vast province. In an age and country where inconsistency in _ religious principle was everywhere rife, Basil set the example of the most loyal adherence to the creed he professed, and the courage with which he refused to bow before Valens saved the cause of Nicaea in Asia Minor. Despite a certain harshness of character, and a tendency to confound the maintenance of his own dignity with the cause of Christianity, into which some saintly but less able prelates have occasionally fallen, 1. Socrates, v. 1. The citizens were aided by Saracen auxiliaries, 2. Socrates, v. 6. 394 THE CHURCH OF THE ANASTASIA, [cH. XVI. Basil deserves the high honour which posterity has accorded to his memory.' New Rome was now the stronghold Gregory of Arianism, for since the deposition of of Nazianzus Paul there had never been an orthodox Constantinople. bishop, and the see had frequently been presided over by arch-heretics. Eusebius of Nicomedia the supporter of Arius, Macedonius the heresiarch, and Eudoxius the spiritual adviser of the Arian emperor Valens, had all been bishops of Con- stantinople. The work of proclaiming the Nicene Faith was undertaken by the saintly and amiable Gregory of Nazianzus, who in 378 commenced his labours in a room which subsequently became the church of the Anastasia? Despite the interruptions of the Arians, and Gregory’s own ill-timed confidence in the cynic Maximus,® who aspired to the bishopric, the work progressed, as the great eloquence of Gregory combined with his moral earnestness won numerous adherents. Theodosius did not enter the capital till Nov. 24, 380, when he ordered the Arian bishop Demophilus to conform to the doctrine of Nicaea or to leave the city. After quoting the Saviour’s words, “When they persecute you in one city flee to another,” Demophilus I. Prolegomena to Basil, Mzcene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. xxxii. **St. Basil is duly canonized in the grateful memory, no less than in the official bede-roll of Christendom, and we may be permitted to regret that the existing Calendar of the Anglican liturgy has not found room for so illustrious a doctor in its somewhat niggard list.” For the omission some amends have lately been made by the erection of a statue of the great bishop of Caesarea under the dome of St. Paul’s. Bp. Wordsworth places him in his proposed Anglican Calendar on Jan. 1. A/intstry of Grace, p. 426. 2. Dr. Hodgkin (in his /taly and her Invaders, vol. I., p. 343) says, ‘‘The mosque of Mehmet Pasha on the south-west of the Hippodrome and overlooking the sea of Marmora still marks the site of the Church of the Resurrection.” St. Jerome became Gregory’s pupil at this time. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Gregory of Nazianzus,’ vol. Il, p. 7514. Gregory was so infatuated with Maximus—or Heron as he was also called—that he pronounced an oration in his honour. Peter of Alexandria recognised him as bishop, and he was consecrated by five Egyptian bishops, who finished the ceremony in a flute-player’s shop. He fled to Alexandria, and wanted Peter himself to retire in his favour } Greg. Naz., Carmen de Vita sua, Xt. 808 foll. Dzct. Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Gregory of Nazianzus’, vol. Il. p. 752. CH. XVI.] . GREGORY RESIGNS, 395 departed. The Emperor now decided that Gregory should be enthroned in the Church of the Apostles, whither he was conducted through a hostile crowd. But the honour of numbering Gregory of Nazianzus among its bishops was never to belong to Constantinople. In 381 one hundred and fifty bishops Bisetenuropic assembled at Constantinople to settle the affairs of the Church. The Council accepted the Creed of Nicaea, but in what form it is not easy to determine.* ‘The question of the bishopric of Constantinople was also decided. If work done for the Faith or personal reputation had been considered, Gregory must have been universally acknowledged as best fitted for the post. He was, however, not popular with several members of the Council. Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, irritated probably by the successful fraud by which Maximus had persuaded the Alexandrian Church to recognise his claims, bore Gregory no good will. Gregory’s indifference to the relative claims of Meletius and Paulinus to the see of Antioch provoked the hostility of the supporters of the former, who did not like to be told that the quarrel would not be worth continuing if it had been about two angels instead of two men. The canonical objection that Gregory was bishop of Sasima, and could not be translated to another see, was raised. Weary with the clamour, Gregory I. Socr., v.7. Mistaking, as the historian avers, the true meaning of the passage. The ‘other city’ is the Heavenly Jerusalem ! 2. ‘This great religious revolution was effected without bloodshed. Gregory, Carmen, XI. 1325 foll. 3. The case is briefly this: the modern form, in which the Nicene Creed is now used, appears with a few divergencies in the Azcoratus of St. Epiphanius, A.D. 373, and this was acknowledged at Chalcedon, A.D. 452, to be the creed of the hundred and fifty Fathers at Con- stantinople. It was not, however, noticed by the Fathers at Ephesus. Prot. Gwatkin in his Artan Controversy (Epochs of Church History), p- 159, insists vehemently on the original Nicene Creed having been the only symbol recited at Constantinople. Hort ( Zwo Déssertations ) argues that the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed was the Creed of St. Cyril and the Church of Jerusalem. Heurtley, De Fide e¢ Symbol; Bright, Canons of the First Four Councils, p. 91; Lias, Nicene Creed, p- 3; and especially Lumby, A7story of the Creeds, p. 80, where the enthusiastic reception of the Creed of Nicaea at Chalcedon is contrasted with the colder welcome accorded to the creed of the hundred and fifty Fathers of Constantinople. Hahn, Syméole, p. 81. 396 ELECTION OF NECTARIUS. [CH, XV1, offered to stand aside, and his offer was eagerly accepted by the bishops.1. The man chosen was a cour! official named Nectarius, a layman who was not even baptized.2. Though he made a respectable bishop, his appointment wasa fatal blunder. Constantinople, as the New Rome, had been given a presidency of honour but no metropolitical jurisdiction. The see had never yet had an orthodox prelate of the first rank. It needed that a man of world-wide reputation should be appointed as the first bishop after the establishment of the Nicene Faith, and the confirmation of the new dignity of the see. Gregory, if not pre-eminent as an administrator, was by far the greatest theologian and orator in the Eastern Church, and would have given immense prestige to the see of New Rome. Under Nectarius the influence of the bishop of Constantinople was so slight, that when. a really great man succeeded to the episcopal throne in the person of St. Chrysostom, he was worsted and driven into exile by a frivolous empress. To the election of Nectarius may perhaps be partly attributed the fact that no bishop of Constantinople in later days ever became a great power in Christendom. Equally unfortunate was the Council in the matter of the schism at Antioch. It had been agreed between the partisans of Meletius and Paulinus that the survivor should be generally acknowledged bishop. No doubt it was expected that Paulinus would die first; but when Meletius passed away during the sitting of the Council, the bishops disregarded the compact and elected Flavian. The Westerns were naturally disgusted at this breach of faith, and the Roman see long refused to acknowledge the acts of the Council.® Though the Council of Constantinople Importance of the was not conspicuous for the number of econd : : eet 3 General Council, bishops present, the eminence of its indi- vidual members, nor the wisdom of its acts, and though by it Gregory of Nazianzus was forced to 1. Gregory Naz., Carmen, XI. 1591 foll. - 2. Nectarius was the praetor of Constantinople. He was selected for the see by Theodosius. He kept up a friendly correspondence with Gregory of Nazianzus. Socrates (v. 8), Sozomen (III. 8), and Theodoret (v. 8), all agree in praising his high character and amiability. 3. Bright, Canons of the First Four General Councils, p. 110. CH. XVI.] A NEW ERA BEGINS. 397 retire into private life resolved never to attend another assembly of bishops, its work was in a sense more permanent than that of any other council. After two other assemblies in 382 and 383, which have been sometimes confounded with that of 381, Arianism was declared to be contrary to Roman law, and the Nicene Faith became the acknowledged creed of the empire." With Theodosius’s edicts in favour of orthodoxy we pass into a new period. Under Constantine Christi- anity and the Roman empire were allied. Under Theodosius they were united. Arianism long lingered among the barbarians, and orthodoxy became the badge of a Roman citizen. From henceforth the idea grew apace that the State was responsible for the maintenance of the true Faith among its subjects. With this we pass into a new sphere, and for centuries a theory of govern- ment began to prevail, that has not yet been entirely relegated to oblivion. 1. As early as 380 Theodosius had ordered all to receive the Faith as taught by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria. A very important question has been raised by Dr. Harnack in his History of Dogma (vol. 11., p. 262; Eng. Tr, vol. Iv., p. 94), that the Council of Constantinople accepted the word duoovcros, but in a different sense to that in which Athanasius had used it. The same writer points out in another passage (vol. 11., p. 266; E. Tr. vol. Iv., p. 99) that the omission of the words from the Nicene formula é« r#s ovctas rod Ilarpés in the Constantinopolitan creed as well as the anathemas is a proof of this. He means that the Fathers of the Council of 381, following Basil of Ancyra, Meletius, and the Cappadocians, adopted the word opoovatos in the sense of duovovaros (of like substance). Of course this would mean that all the work of Nicaea was stultified by the neo-orthodoxy of Constantinople. This position has been assailed with much theological skill and learning by the Rev. J. F. Bethune-Baker, B.D., in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, The Meaning of Homooustos, 1901. In the Chréstian Letter, addressed to Hooker after the publication of the Fifth Book of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, the Puritan asks ‘‘ Here we crave of you, Master Hoo., to explain your own meaning where you say, ‘ The Father alone is originally that Deity which Christ originally is not’: how the Godhead of the Father and of the Son be all one, and yet originally not the same Deity !” The marginal note of Hooker’s copy preserved in the Library of C.C.C., Oxford, is ‘* The Godhead of the Father and the Son is in no way denied but granted to be the same. ‘The only thing denied is that the Person of the Son hath Deity or Godhead in such sort as the Father hath it.” It would seem that Hooker’s position is much the same as that of the Cappadocians. His point, which the Puritan has missed, being that the Father is the rny OcdryrTos. CHAPTER XVII. THE REIGN OF THEODOSIUS AND THE FALL OF PAGANISM. Tueoposius had anticipated the work Theodosius of the Second General Council in an edict Proavout of Published at Thessalonica on February 28, Orthodoxy. A.D. 380, addressed to the people of Con- stantinople, in which he ordered that the Faith taught to the Romans by St. Peter, and still held by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria, should be accepted by all nations. From henceforward the title of Catholic was to be reserved for those who adored the Father, Son and Holy Ghost with equal reverence.| The entire religious policy of this emperor was directed to this end, and resulted in the Catholic Faith becoming the one legal religion of the Romans.? If Arianism, banished from the Empire, found a home among its barbarian conquerors, it lost the prestige of being recognised by the laws of the civilised world. It did not, however, succumb without a struggle; for, though suppressed by edicts of ever-increasing severity, it made its stronghold among the barbarian soldiers in the Roman armies, whom no emperor could offend 1. Cod. Theod., lib. XvI., tit. 1, 2. Sozomen, VII. 4. 2. Though Theodosius did not directly endow the Catholic Church, he conferred several valuable privileges, and gave legal recognition to many Church customs. Allard summarises as follows : ‘‘ He forbade the summoning of a bishop as a witness: allowed neither criminal trial nor corporal punishment during Lent: placed Easter and Sunday among public holidays : allowed no amphitheatrical games on Sundays: forbade Jews to buy Christian slaves; and many other similar regulations are recorded.” (See Allard, Le Christianisme et 21 Empire Romain, p. 264.) CH. XVII.] _ EDICTS OF THEODOSIUS. 399 with impunity; but even these rude mercenaries were awed by the majesty of the Catholic Church, when confronted by a bishop of the commanding personality of St. Ambrose. Despite the severity of the edicts which appeared under the name of Theodosius, we have the express testimony of the historian Socrates that this emperor was no persecutor;' and we may perhaps explain this discrepancy by supposing that his busy and laborious reign left him no time to enforce with minute rigour the laws enacted by him.’ If, however, we acquit him of the actual guilt of persecu- tion, it is impossible to deny that he inaugurated a policy which his successors did not shrink from carrying into practice. Arianism was not, however, completely mcrae: ot suppressed in Constantinople by the so- Constantinople. called Second General Council. There had never been a Catholic bishop in the city since the deposition of Paulus (circa a.p. 338); and the forcible installation of Gregory of Nazianzus, I. Socr., Vv. 20. Tofro 5é¢ loréov, ws 6 Bactheds Oeoddctos oddéva Trovrwy édlwKe, mAnv Sri rov Evvéusov év Kwvrorarvrivovrbve éni olxlas cuvdyovra, Kal rods svyypadévras att Adbyous émidecxviuevov, ws Tals didackadlats woAddovs Avuavduevov els eLoplay reuPOjvac éxéXevoe. In an earlier chapter (vii.) Socrates relates the banishment of Demophilus from Constantinople ; and (c. x.) says that only the sect of the Novatians were allowed churches within the city. There are fifteen edicts of Theodosius in the Code, and these are of increasing severity. It is not certain that the law was always enforced. Dr. Hodgkin (/éaly and her Invaders, bk. 1., ch. 6) thinks that it was some time before they could be universally acted upon. “*But none the less” he adds ‘‘ was the Theodosian legislation ultimately successful in the suppression of all teaching opposed to the Creed of Nicaea, and the victory thus won exercised an immense and, in my view, a disastrous influence on the fortunes of the Empire, of Christianity, and even of Modern Europe.” Gregory Nazianzen (Carmen ae Vita sua, vv. 1279—1395) speaks slightingly of Theodosius and finds fault with his toleration. ‘* The fact is that during Theodosius’s reign, intolerance towards the cult was combined with the greatest tolerance towards persons.” Allard, Le Chréstzanisme et fT Empire Romain, p. 274. 2. ‘There follow in 381, 382, 384, 388, 389, 394, laws against the heretics—Eunomians, Arians, Apollinarians, Macedonians, Manichaeans— confiscating their churches and handing them over to the Catholics, forbidding their assemblies, exiling their bishops and priests, confiscating all the places where their rites were celebrated. Zhe great number of these laws, several of which are repeated, prove that they were not everywhere carried out.” P. Allard, Le Christianisme et [Empire Romain, p- 263. 400 COUNCILS IN CONSTANTINOPLE, [CH. XVIL followed by his speedy retirement during the Council, was not calculated to strengthen the party now in the ascendant. Demophilus, who was still a leader of the Arian party, and had influential supporters, was able to assemble his followers outside the walls. In fact, Catholicism in the capital of the Eastern Empire was in a somewhat precarious condition, which its dis- sensions, as revealed by the Council in a.p. 381, did not render more secure. ‘Though the Western bishops seem to have desired a Council at Alexandria, Theo- dosius felt it incumbent upon him to settle the Arian dispute at Constantinople, and for this reason a second assembly was held in a.p. 382 consisting chiefly of the bishops who had been present in the preceding year. To emphasise his adherence to Catholicism and the triumph of the Creed of Nicaea the Emperor ordered the body of Bishop Paulus to be brought to Constantinople from Cucusum in Armenia, and interred it with much pomp in the church “which” (says Socrates) “beareth his name unto this day”’.} eee ; Nectarius felt scarcely competent to the Novatians, @¢al with doctrinal questions ; and when Theodosius, in A.D. 383, ordered the different religious sects to assemble for a conference, the bishop of Constantinople felt considerable trepida- tion as to its result. Having been all his life engaged in secular affairs, Nectarius could not hope to meet the Arian theologians on equal terms, and apparently he had no orthodox doctor at hand with whom he could confer. Accordingly he sought advice of the Novatian bishop, Agelius, who referred him to a Reader of his church, by name Sisinnius. ‘The Novatians were as staunch supporters of the Homéousian Faith as the Catholics; but even Sisinnius, though he bore the reputation of being mighty in the Scriptures, had no desire for a contest with such skilled dialecticians as Demophilus, Eleusius and Eunomius, the Arian champions. He accordingly advised Nectarius to suggest that the Emperor should simply ask the Arian leaders if they were in agreement with the 1. Socrates, v. 9. CH. XVII. ] _ HERESY PROSCRIBED. 401 ancient Fathers of the Church. By this means the enemies of the Nicene Faith would be placed in a dilemma; since if they refused to accept the Fathers they could be anathematized without further discussion, and if they acknowledged their authority they could be proved to be heretics. Theodosius, finding that the question suggested had caused division amongst the various Arian factions, ordered each leader to state his views in writing. Having prayed earnestly before perusing the different Creeds, the Emperor destroyed all such as “derogated from the unity which is in the Blessed Trinity”. For their services at this crisis the Novatianist schismatics were from this time forward the only non-Catholic body permitted to worship publicly in Constantinople. Heresy had now become a crime against the state; and imperial edicts against it began to fill the statute book. In a.p. 381, the year of the Council, Arians, Photinians and Eunomians were forbidden to build churches in place of those taken from them. In the following year the Manichaeans were ordered to be sought out by inquisitors. In July 383, heretical worship was prohibited; and in the following Sep- tember building of churches and holding of ordina- tions were forbidden to those outside the pale of the Church Catholic. Gregory of Nazianzus found the Apollinarians active in establishing bishops, and, perhaps at his instigation, a further edict appeared against the Macedonian, Arian, and Apollinarian clergy. A still more stringent edict was issued by Theodosius and the younger Valentinian against the Apollinarians. Eunomius and his followers were put outside the pale of the law in 389.2 The principle of persecution was in fact fully admitted by the legislation of Theodosius ; but it is doubtful if he was able to put his laws into practice. The power of the Empire was on the wane, and it was easier to issue edicts than to enforce them. The Arians had ardent supporters among the barbarian Edicts against heresy. 1. Socrates, v. 10. 2. Dict. Christ. Biog., art. ‘Theodosius the Great’, vol. Iv., p. 962 a cc 402 FALL OF ARIANISM. __ [cH xvi. soldiery, who had embraced this form of Christianity, and no emperor had the hardihood to offend the best troops in the Roman armies. But, as far as the empire was concerned, the Arian controversy was virtually at an end. No really strong supporters of the once popular heresy appeared after the reign of Theodosius, and it had always been inferior to Catholicism in religious force. We turn from it to the even more embittered theological disputes of the fifth century. Before, however, completely aban- posta and doning this subject it is necessary to Gregory of | Speak of the deaths of the last Eastern ere champions of the Homdousion. Gregory ™ """" of Nazianzus and his name-sake of Nyssa long survived their friend and brother the great St. Basil. The two surviving Cappadocian Fathers lacked that genius for command which made St. Basil one of the leading spirits of his age; but intellectually they were both his equals, if not his superiors. Gregory returned, not a little disgusted with the ways of Councils and the intrigues of the bishops, to his home at Nazianzus, where he administered the see as he had done in his father’s life-time. He was not a little troubled by the difficulty of finding a suitable bishop for the place, and by the progress of Apollinarianism in the district. At last Eulalius, a kinsman of Gregory’s, was chosen bishop of Nazianzus, and Gregory himself retired to a little estate of his own at Arianzus. He occupied himself with his poetry and in corresponding with his friends; but his health was never vigorous, and his bodily strength had been impaired by asceticism. He died in 389 Or 390. Of all Greek Fathers Gregory alone, like St. John, is honoured with the title of ‘the Divine’, being known to posterity as the Theologus. In his writings, and especially in his five great discourses against the Arians at Constantinople, Gregory may be said to have pronounced the last word in the controversy, at least with regard to the Divinity and _ consubstantiality of the Son; for in the matter of the Holy Spirit his cH. xvi.] THE CHURCH AND CULTURE. 403 language, though orthodox, is more ambiguous.! As a practical ruler Gregory was not successful; he was essentially a thinker and a student, besides being a poet of some merit. As a preacher he may perhaps be pronounced as the first great orator the Church produced, and the conversion of Constantinople to orthodoxy is no mean tribute to the persuasiveness of his eloquence. The name of Gregory of Nyssa figures saath and gi 80 little in ecclesiastical history, that we Gidgury of Ny sia; are liable to forget that he ranks among c. A.D. 395. the greatest of the Fathers of the Eastern Church. He survived his friend several years, and died about a.p. 395. At the Council of Constantinople he pronounced the funeral oration over Meletius, for whom all the three Cappadocian Fathers had the highest reverence. He was apparently not at the Council of 382; but in 383 he delivered his discourses on the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity at Constantinople. Gregory is the most philo- sophical of the Fathers, and had the courage to follow Origen even in his boldest speculations.” His teaching as to the purpose of the Incarnation and the nature of the Atonement was long accepted as the doctrine of the Church at large: but he was too original to escape entirely the reproach of wandering beyond the limits of strict orthodoxy, and his language respecting the two-fold nature of our Lord would scarcely have passed without criticism when that controversy was at its height.® The three Cappadocians, Basil and the two Gregorys, belong to the period when the Church seemed to be most disposed to adopt all that was best in Greek culture. The unquestionably Christian and ascetic 1. Swete, History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, p. 105. 2. This is seen notably in his doctrine of the droxardoracts. Man’s power of choice between good and evil cannot ultimately defeat God’s purpose. God must finally be all in all. Even Satan will be purified and restored. wv. Srawley, Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa, in the Cambridge Patristic Texts, p. xxiii. 3. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. Iv., pp. 84—105. The Rev. J. R. Srawley’s ‘Cappadocian Theology’, in Hastings’ Dzctionary of Neligions coz 404. PAGANISM STILL STRONG. (cH. XVII. character of the three great Fathers renders all suspicion of temporising with Hellenism superfluous; yet undoubt- edly they displayed a culture and liberality of thought which would not have been so acceptable in the follow- ing centuries as it was in their less bigoted age. The fourth century, which opened with Hellenism in the ascendant as a perse- cuting religion, closed with the downfall of the official cultus of the Roman empire. The position of Constantine and his immediate successors was not unlike that of the English monarch who, though officially head of the state religion, was privately attached to a different form of worship. As has been shewn in the account of his reign, Constantine was above all things politic in his attitude towards the old religion. As Pontifex Maximus he was its official head, temples were erected in his honour, and he was deified after his death. His enactments, if actually hostile to the ancient cultus, were professedly directed against immoral practices or illegal magic. Constantius, though he issued decrees prohibiting sacrifices and closing the temples, was in other respects careful to avoid hurting the religious susceptibilities of those who were probably the majority of his subjects. Julian acted strictly within his legal rights when he made his celebrated attempt to restore Hellenism as the cultus — of the Empire. Valentinian’s policy was that of absolute impartiality, and his brother Valens seems not to have shewn the bias against heathenism which he displayed towards the Nicene Christians. In Rome, at least, temples and priesthoods enjoyed their ancient revenues and official position, and in the administra- tion of the Empire it could not have been easy to recognise how great a change in conviction had taken place, Position of Paganism. The education and literature of the pag ae age shewed no traces of the influence of Institutions, Christianity. Youths whose family had been Christians for generations passed through the same course of study as those of heathen 1. For the position of Constantine and Constantius see Beugnot, Chute du Paganisme, passim. CH. XVIL] RUIN OF HEATHENISM. 405 parentage, and attended the lectures of professors openly hostile to the new Faith. Then as now the classics formed the basis of a sound education, and no act of Julian was so resented as the edict forbidding Christians to expound them. So much a matter of course was it for Christian youths to be educated on the ancient lines, that their religion did not interfere with the social amenities of life, and very real friend- ships existed between them and their Hellenist masters and companions.’ The secular life of an educated man was necessarily under the ancient influences; Christianity affected but little the course of adminis- tration of the Empire; and its spirit was unable to penetrate the vast structure of the Roman law. ‘The foundations of a civilization, which had _ been laid centuries earlier, were still the same, and the Roman empire never became a Christian institution in the sense that its Teutonic successor did. It adopted Christianity, it never incorporated it. Yet the organization of the old cultus collapsed with remarkable celerity. It is hardly an exaggera- tion to say that in a.p. 380 it seemed to be almost unimpaired, and by a.p. 400 it was gone. In the reign of Theodosius a series of crushing blows was inflicted. The question of what was to be done Wacuistona with the temples was a difficult one, as the government was naturally desirous to preserve the buildings for public uses. But the spirit of destruction was more powerful than any imperial edict. The monks were zealous and intrepid assailants of the monuments of idolatry; and the bishops exercised influence in support of their actions. Probably the towns suffered least; for there the old beliefs had least vitality, and the sight of the monu- ments of the old religion did not revive it; but in the country districts the ancestral worship was still vigorous, and the Christians began to call the ancient creed Paganism, as the religion of the pagani or 1. Dill, Zhe Last Century of the Western Empire. 406 RIOT AT ALEXANDRIA, — (CH. XVII. rustics.! As long as the temples stood in rural districts, strongholds of idolatry remained, and the zeal shewn in levelling them to the ground was prompted by a conviction that till they were destroyed the old cults could not be rooted out. | Two examples of the iconoclasm of the age are worthy of notice; one in the capital of Egypt, and the other in the country districts of Gaul. The fall of the Serapeum and the career of St. Martin of Tours are alike illustrative of the times. The Serapis worship was characteristic of a city so cosmopolitan as Alexandria. To many the god represented the embodiment of -all divinity. Though comparatively modern, in the fourth century his temple was the centre of Egyptian worship; and the rise of the Nile was considered by all, including even the Christian inhabitants of Alexandria, to depend upon the will of the god. Religious bitterness was stronger at Alexandria than elsewhere. The turbulent city was distracted by the three rival mobs of Jews, heathen, and Christians, each animated by implacable hostility against the two others, and capable of any crime when its passions were once aroused. The power of the Christian ‘pope’ rivalled, nay at times surpassed, that of the Roman governor, and this great office was, for over half a century perhaps, held by members of a single family. Theophilus (385—412) and Cyril (412—444) were uncle and nephew, and Dioscorus (444—452) was Cyril’s archdeacon; these able if not always scrupulous men > maintained a tradition of vigorous policy in the Church. Since the days of George of Cappadocia, the usurping bishop in the time of Athanasius, there had been fore- bodings of a determined attempt to overthrow idolatry in the city, and within five-and-twenty years of the death of The Serapeum. 1. The original Christian use of the word paganus seems to have been in contrast with wzz/es (the soldier of the Cross). In Tertullian fides pagana means ‘civic duty’, De Corona, x1. Non-Christians are people who have not taken the oath of service to God or Christ. Harnack, Axpanscon of Christianity, vol. 11., p. 22, Eng. Trans. Ulphilas, Prudentius, and Orosius maintain the ordinary explanation of the term as given in the text. CH. XVII. ] THE SERAPEUM DESTROYED. 407 George at the hands of the heathen mob, the Christians felt strong enough to carry out their purpose. According to the historian Socrates, who himself had conversed with eye-witnesses of the great riot, Theophilus had obtained leave to destroy the temples in Alexandria. The work of demolition was carried on in such a way as to give the greatest possible offence to the Hellenic party. The Mithraeum was laid in ruins, and the rites practised exposed toridicule. Foul or indecent symbols, taken from thence or from the Temple of Dionysus (Osiris), were paraded through the streets. The heathen took refuge in the Serapeum,' a vast temple which stood On an eminence outside the city. In grandeur it was said to be rivalled by the Capitol of Rome alone, and here the enemies of Christianity made their last stand. Not only did they defend themselves with all the fury of despair, but they made numerous sallieg and took many prisoners, putting them to cruel deaths. Helladius, a priest of Zeus, who afterwards lectured in Constantinople, told Socrates that he had slain nine Christians with his own hand. Olympius, a philosopher, defended the Serapeum and refused to surrender till the Emperor’s pleasure was known. At last the edict arrived ordering the destruction of all the temples; once more the Christian mob ascended to the Serapeum, and attacked with such fury that its defenders abandoned it. Theophilus ‘entered the sanctuary and saw the sacred image. Serapis was depicted as a venerable man seated, with hands outstretched from wall to wall. Even the Christians were dismayed at the idea of demolishing an emblem of such power and majesty. But Theophilus did not share their fears. He bade the soldier at his side strike hard, and the head of the image was lopped off; within it was a nest of mice; and Serapis was laid low amid the jeers of the triumphant followers of the bishop.2 Yet a fear was felt that the Nile would not rise, and Theophilus shared therein enough 1. Allard (0%. cit., p. 272) says, ‘*The insults of the bishop roused the heathen to revolt, and they made the Serapeum their headquarters.” 2. Sozomen, VII. 15. Socrates (v. 16) gives a more confused account: he says that he had himself conversed with heathen philosophers who had taken part in the riot. 408 PAGANISM IN GAUL. —__s [cH xvil. to say “Better Egypt should remain unwatered than that the Nile should rise by enchantments.” But that year, it is said, the river rose higher than ever, till men feared a flood! The gods of Egypt were no more, and monks assailed their prostrate forms with impunity. Sr A ial In the West the same work of de- phate: struction went on. The most popular Saint of Gaul, to whom one of the earliest churches in England is dedicated,? was both the evangelist of the country and the demolisher of its former objects of worship. St. Martin, who was made bishop of Tours in a.pD. 371, made an extraordinary impression on his age, not only by the innumerable miracles attributed to him, but~also by the affection he inspired by his ready charity and intrepid zeal. The founder of Monasticism in Gaul, Martin had the support of his monks in his contest with Paganism. If he deserves the blame of a ruthless iconoclast,’ a destroyer of priceless works of art, Martin was not a fanatic of so dangerous a type as Theophilus. The ruin of images, not of men, marked the progress of the Saint, and Paganism did not in Gaul, as at Alexandria, furnish its martyrs.‘ bat ‘ That the imperial legislation against Priscillianiem, error was beginning to bear its fatal fruit is seen in the enforcement of the letter of the law against heresy in the province of Gaul, the scene of St. Martin’s labours. The case of Priscillian and his companions revealed to the Christian world what the legislation of Theodosius and his pious advisers really meant; and the horror which the execution of these heretics inspired shewed that public feeling in 1. Theodoret, v. 22. Sozomen, VII. 20, 2. That of St. Martin at Canterbury. 3. Even in his iconoclasm, so distasteful to modern feeling, St. Martin rendered a great service. ‘‘If St. Martin and his followers had not a thousand times braved death to pull down rustic chapels and sacred trees, the countries of the West would have remained through the ages the refuge of the gravest superstition.”’ Allard, p. 285. . M. Gaston Boissier remarks that St. Martin was a typical Frenchman, ‘‘ La France n’existait pas encore, et pourtant Martin est un saint francais.” La Fin du Paganisme, vol. 1., p. 62; see also p. 66, Sulpicius Severus is the biographer of St. Martin. See also his Dia/ogues with Postumianus, and his Azstoria Sacra. - Se ee 2 ee - CH. XVII. ] THE SPANISH HERESY. 409 the Church was not yet ripe for such ruthlessness. At the risk of somewhat anticipating matters we propose to consider this instance of the severity of the law. Valentinian died in 375, and was succeeded by his sons Gratian and Valentinian II. Gratian, a worthy and amiable youth, allowed his infant brother and stepmother to reign at Milan whilst he himself urtdertook the active administration of Gaul. In 383 he was put to death by Maximus, who had been proclaimed emperor in Britain. Magnus Maximus, like Theodosius a Spaniard, had been a dependent of that emperor’s family. Heresy, which had always prevailed in southern Gaul in Gnostic and Manichaean forms, had permeated the adjacent countries, and had made its appearance in Spain in a new aspect known as Priscillianism. In the suppression of these opinions the laws enacted by the Spaniard Theodosius were first put into active operation by his countryman Maximus. Marcus, a native of Memphis in Egypt, suddenly appeared in Spain, and taught the opinions which he had adopted to a lady named Agape, and to Helpidius: a rhetorician. The fascination of the new doctrine seems to have consisted chiefly in its uncompromising asceticism, which suited the ever increasing desire of the time for monastic austerities. The doctrines of Marcus were Gnostic, or perhaps Manichaean, in character, and many of these were kept secret by the sectaries, who regarded the letter of Scripture sufficient for the vulgar. Dissimulation as to their true opinions seems to have been with them a matter of principle, and was not regarded as blame-worthy. A sect so attractive in its austerity and so secret as to its methods, was sure to spread its influence rapidly in a country like Spain, which has always been remarkable for the fiery energy of its religious zeal. A leader was found in a young and wealthy layman named Priscillian, full of zeal for a mystical and ascetic doctrine so much in consonance with the spirit of the age. Neither time nor money were spared in organizing a party, and the new opinions pervaded the Peninsula. The clergy began to be numbered among the converts, Synod of Saragossa. 410 PRISCILLIAN MADE A BISHOP. [CH. XvIL and two bishops, Instantius and Salvianus, became devoted followers of the ardent Priscillian. The orthodox prelates took alarm, and Adyginus, bishop of Cordova, took counsel with Idatius, bishop of Merida, as to the proper course to be pursued with regard to the new opinions. A synod was held at Saragossa (Caesar Augusta), and Priscillian, Helpidius, and the two bishops Instantius and Salvianus, were excom- municated. (a.p. 380.) The Catholics themselves were evidently disunited by this action. The most prominent opponents of Priscillian were Idatius and another bishop with almost the same name, Ithacius. Adyginus was considered to be too lenient towards the heretics, and his conduct was condemned at the synod. When we consider the growing strength of the ascetic spirit in the Church we can understand that the Catholics, even if they reprobated the heresy of Priscillian, had no small sympathy with the extreme severity of life practised by his followers. Ithacius, their bitterest opponent, was a man whose life did not ‘commend itself to the orthodoxy of the age:} and it may be reasonably inferred that his zeal was aroused quite as much by the austerities of Priscillian as by his erroneous views.” ae The opposition to the movement only first condemns 1ncreased its strength, and Priscillian was Priscillian and advanced by his admirers to the bishopric | then reverses of Abila. Idatius and Ithacius asked for an imperial confirmation of the proceed- ings of the synod of Saragossa, which was given by Gratian in a.p. 381. The Priscillianists appealed to Rome, and their leader and a company of his followers, including several women, went by way of Gaul to the Imperial City. Euchrocia and her daughter Procula ministered of their substance to the heresiarch, just as 1. Sulpicius Severus, Hzst. Sacr. 11.,¢. 50. ‘* 1 certainly hold that Ithacius had no worth or holiness about him. For he was a bold, loquacious, impudent, and extravagant man; excessively devoted to the pleasures of sensuality.” 2. Dict. of Chr. Biog., art. ‘Priscillianus ’. “Hodgkin (Ztaly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 444) gives an account of the opinions of the er See also Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Sacr. 1., c. 46 foll. CH. XVII. ] PRISCILLIAN CONDEMNED. 4II Paula and her daughters were doing to St. Jerome. Neither at Rome nor at Milan did the enthusiasts find support. Repulsed alike by Pope Damasus and St. Ambrose, the Priscillianists turned, as their adversaries had done, to the secular power. Having no lack of money, they had no difficulty in winning the powerful support of Macedonius, the Magister Officiorum. At his instigation Gratian reversed his decision against the sect, and Instantius and Priscillian returned to Spain and obtained possession of their churches. Ithacius had to leave the province, and took refuge at the Imperial Court at Tréves. The money of. Priscillian had, however, secured the officials, and Ithacius failed to obtain their support. a But in 383 Gratian was murdered, and Maximus, in the following year Maximus came to Priscillian Tréves. The usurper acted with more vapor to vigour than his predecessor, whose weak- ; ness is incidentally revealed by the fact that the matter of Priscillian had depended on the decision of venal officials. Maximus on his own account ordered a synod to assemble at Burdegala (Bordeaux). Instantius was deprived of his see; but Priscillian ap- pealed to the Emperor and the synod dare not disallow his appeal.t At this juncture St. Martin began to inter- vene. In one respect the bishop of Tours is the fore- runner of the high-minded prelates of the Middle Ages. Nothing would induce him to allow the superiority of any secular power to the clergy of the Church. It was extremely necessary for Maximus to win the support of the Saint, on whose recognition his imperial title seemed to depend. Maximus invited Martin to a banquet, but the bishop, by passing the cup from which he drank to a priest rather than to the Emperor, shewed his contempt for the civil as compared with the ecclesiastical authority. He went so far, however, as to intercede on behalf of Priscillian, and obtained a promise from Maximus that blood should not be shed. But Ithacius urged the policy of severity, and, after a trial before the praefect Evodius, Priscillian was con- 1. Hefele, H7st. Cone., vol. 11., p. 384, Eng. Transl. A412 HORROR OF CHRISTIANS. [CH. XVII. demned to death. Maximus himself pronounced the sentence.’ Priscillian, Latronianus a poet, Euchrocia, two presbyters, and two deacons, were put to death. Instantius was banished to the Scilly Isles. It was resolved to extirpate the heresy by force; military tribunes were to be sent to Spain with full powers to examine those accused of Priscillianism and to deprive them of life and property. Maximus had inaugurated such a policy as would have befitted the fifteenth or sixteenth century. Perhaps it is fortunate that the first persecution on behalf of Christianity should have been due to a ruler of such doubtful character and legitimacy as Maximus; for what might in the case of a Constantine or a Theodosius have appeared as a proof of godly zeal, in the present instance was rightly regarded as an atrocious crime. Rien A Gallican bishop named Theognostes Indignation of thas the credit of being the first to protest y withdrawing from communion with the Spanish prelates. Soon, however, St. Martin ap- peared on the scene, horrified at the cruelty and duplicity of the whole proceedings. He was only induced to hold any communication with the Emperor in hopes of pro- curing pardon for some of the adherents of Gratian. He succeeded in dissuading Maximus from indulging in a general persecution in Spain, only on condition 1. Dr. Hodgkin remarks, ‘* Already the punishment of death had been denounced against heretical leaders, at least as a threat.” Jtaly and her Invaders, vol. 1., ch. 6. The edict in the Theodosian code is directed against the Manichaeans, but involves the Encratites and other heretics ina similar sentence: Proditos crimine vel im mediocré vestigio facinoris hujus tnventos surnmo supplicio et inexpiabili poena jubemus affligi.” Inquisitors are ordered to be appointed. One of the charges brought against Priscillian was that of Manichaeism. St. Ambrose (Z. 26, ad /renaewm) condemns the action of the bishops. St. Augustine (ZZ. 134, to Apringius the Pro- consul) advocates the lenient treatment even of the African Circumcellions, and refuses to draw the mediaeval distinction between the secular and Spiritual arm in punishing heresy with death: ‘‘Cum enim tu facis, ecclesia facit, propter quam facis et cujus filius facis.” Eleven tractates by Priscillian have been discovered and are printed by Schepps in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat., vol. XVitl., together with the Canons by him prefixed to St. Paul’s Epistles. Priscillian is the earliest author to quote I John v. 7 (the three heavenly witnesses). See also Kiinstle, Avziz- priscilliana (1905). This author discusses whether the Athanasian Creed is not an anti-Priscillian work. _ CH. XVII.) REVERENCE FOR ROME, 413 that the Saint would hold communion with the bishops who had sanctioned the death of Priscillian. For his compliance in this respect St. Martin believed that his power of working miracles was seriously diminished.! Pope Siricius, St, Ambrose, and St. Augustine, were agreed in condemning the death sentence pronounced on the Priscillianists., The whole affair throws a light on the deplorable condition of the Church of Gaul. The worldliness of the prelates, the readiness shewn on both sides to call in the civil power, the unscrupulous bribery of the court officials, the shameless appeal to a worldly tribunal to settle a matter of faith, and the indifference to shedding human blood, shocked the conscience of the most Chris- tian men of the fourth century. Alien, however, as were the proceedings to the spirit of the Christianity of the age, they were the logical outcome of a policy which all parties were agreed in furthering. The laws of Theodosius were only enforced by Idatius, Ithacius, and Maximus. | St. Martin died before the close of the fourth century. His feast, once so popular in England and still known as Martinmas, is celebrated on November 11. He is the forerunner of a new era; the wonder-working monastic saint of Western Europe. Ara We turn from St. Martin to one whose faults as well as his conspicuous virtues are eminently characteristic of the period; but before giving an account of St. Ambrose, it is desirable to say somewhat of the social system in which he moved before his elevation to the bishopric of Milan. Ambrose was connected with the great Roman aristocracy which played so promi- nent a part in Italy during the fourth century. The prestige of the city and its ancient families seems to have increased instead of diminished with the loss of political power. When Milan became the governmental head of Italy, Rome began to be regarded with veneration as the holy city of the Empire. The magnificence of the city impressed every visitor, and Prestige of Rome. 1. Sulpicius Severus, Dzalog. 111. 13. 414 AMMIANUS ON THE NOBLES. [CH. XVII. the poet Claudian thus describes the prospect from the palace of the Caesars in A.D. 403 :— The lofty palace towering to the sky Beholds below the courts of justice lie ; The num’rous temples round the ramparts strong, That to the immortal deities belong ; The Thund’rer’s domes ; suspended giant race Upon the summits of Tarpeian space ; The sculptured doors ; in air the banners spread ; The num’rous towers that hide in brass their head ; The columns girt with naval prows of brass ; The various buildings raised on terreous mass 5 The works of nature joining human toils ; And arcs of triumph decked with splendid spoils ; The glare of metal strikes upon the sight, And sparkling gold o’erpowers the dazzling light.* The great nobles of Rome remained Romar bles, almost as wealthy as they had been in the days of the Republic and early Em- pire. Ammianus, the historian, gives a description of them in the middle of the fourth century. Their palaces were cities in miniature, each with its temple, hippo- drome, forum, and baths. When they travelled their retinues were worthy of Alexander the Great. They attended the public baths in their chariots in order to exhibit their power and affability. They assumed whimsical names like Reburrus and Tarrasius. They gave audience to strangers to impress them with their importance and grandeur.? Their wealth was such that it only can be appreciated by moder standards. Four thousand pounds of gold (£180,000) was the annual revenue of several of the great Roman families. Sym- machus, who was only moderately wealthy, spent two thousand pounds of gold (£90,000) in the celebration of his son’s praetorship. Nor were the Christian nobility 1. De Vita Cons. Hon. v. 42, Hawkins’s Transl. Claudian, Zz ZZ. cons. Stilichonts, 130 ff. Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, vol. U., p. 1603 Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1., ch. 2. Dr. Hodgkin (Jtaly and her Invaders, vol. 1.5 p. 560) remarks, ‘‘The heathenism of the Mediterranean countries was all concentrated in the city on the Tiber.’ Rome is called ‘‘ First among cities, te Lome of the gods (divum domus).” a. Ammianus Marcellinus, XIv. 6. 26; XVIII. 4. 29—32. CH. XVII.] ROMAN SOCIETY, 415 less luxurious than their pagan brethren. Ammianus, the heathen soldier, describes exactly the same aristo- cracy as St. Jerome when he speaks of the devout ladies of Rome, and the dignified clergy. The clerical fop who drives such horses as the King of Thrace might envy, and visits the palaces of the matrons, and the noble lady, borne in her litter to St. Peter’s that she may distribute alms in public, are just the same as the patricians in Ammianus’ scathing description. The society was evidently wealthy, brilliant, and frivolous, but neither altogether illiterate nor uncultivated. In- deed, both in Christian and heathen Rome there were men and women not unworthy of being members of the great houses of a world-wide empire. The conservatism of the Roman nobility made it as a body naturally more favourable to the old than to the new religion, especially as their own credit was at stake. The priesthoods and offices connected with the temples were in some families hereditary, and the asso- ciations of many generations had endeared the ancient cults to the members of the great houses of Rome. During the reign of Gratian and Dias aye Theodosius the leaders of the heathen no- yimachus, and |... Probus. bility were Praetextatus and Symmachus, men of blameless lives and distinguished attainments, whilst the Christians had the support of the great Anician family, and of Probus, who was at the head of the Roman aristocracy. Under Valentinian, Probus had held the highest offices a subject could hold, and when praetorian praefect of Italy he appointed St. Ambrose governor of the provinces of Liguria and Aemilia. Ammianus, the historian, charges him with being incapable and oppressive in his administration, but the poets Claudian and Ausonius praise the liberal use he made of his fortune.1. Theodosius, when in Italy, gave proof of the political importance of the family of Probus by making his two sons Probinus and Olybrius consuls in the same year, A.D. 395. It is remarkable 1. Ammianus Marcellinus, Xxx. §. 4—7. Claudian, Consulatus Olybriz et Probint, 42—44. Dr. Hodgkin (/taly and her Invaders, vol. I., p. 583) calls Probus ‘* That successful place-hunter, but most unsuccessful ruler.” 416 AMBROSE OF MILAN. — [CH. XVII, that, despite their difference in religion, Symmachus and Probus were intimate friends, and social intercourse generally seems to have been little disturbed at Rome by questions of belief. This pleasing tolerance was characteristic of the closing days of the fourth century.} The struggle between the two faiths was waged over the rejection of the title of Pontifex Maximus by the Emperor, and the retention of the statue and altar of Victory in the Roman Senate-house. The great influence of St. Ambrose ensured the triumph of the Christians in both cases. This remarkable man was the son of Ambrose a Praefectus Galliarum, one of the highest made Bishop of : : rravaN officers in the Empire. He was educated in Rome, studied as a lawyer, and was appointed ‘consular’, or provincial governor of secondary rank, over Liguria and Aemilia, Milan being situated in the first-named district. Probus, who gave him the office, dismissed him with the words “‘Vade age non ut judex, sed ut Episcopus”. Evidently Ambrose obeyed this injunction; for when Auxentius the Arian bishop died, the people of Milan clamoured for Ambrose as his successor.? This in itself shews the growing influence of the Church. That the Milanese should desire a just and upright governor to be transformed into a bishop proves that they considered that he would be more use to them in an ecclesiastical than in a civil office. In fact, the bishop was the popular representative of the city or province against the oppressive or inefficient Roman government, and his power could be made far more effective than that of any imperial officer. Milan was the governmental head of Italy and the frequent home of the emperor, and an able bishop had almost unlimited power of influencing the rulers of the Roman world. Never was an office of such responsibility filled by a man more fitted to wield it for what he considered to be the good of others than was the see of Milan by Ambrose. 1. Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, Book 11. (Sketches of Western Society). 2. ‘*Raptus a tribunalibus ad sacerdotium,” says St. Ambrose of himself. De Offcits, 1. 4. The life of Ambrose was written by his secretary (zotarzus) Paulinus. CH. XVII.} PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. 417 As a man well versed in civil business, and at the same time full of spiritual fervour, Ambrose was fortunate in having as emperors two youths who, if not particularly able, were thoroughly sincere and well-intentioned. Gratian (375—383), a young man of genuine piety, succeeded his father Valentinian at the age of sixteen. Two years later, when he was preparing to go to the assistance of his uncle Valens, the youthful emperor asked the bishop to write a treatise for him in support of orthodoxy; and in answer to this request, Ambrose composed his earliest work, De Fide. It was owing, doubtless, to the influence of Ambrose that Gratian refused to assume the title of Pontifex Maximus. When this was done is not quite certain. Ausonius, who had been the tutor of Gratian, was made Consul in A.D. 379, and addressed a panegyric to the Emperor on the occasion. The religion of this writer is a matter of dispute, but on the whole it seems probable that he wasa Christian. Yet he uses language which would hardly be possible had Gratian formally refused to be called Pontifex Maximus at this time. The title also is seen in inscriptions and coins of the period. Zosimus,} however, declares that Gratian refused the insignia of the office; and he probably did so when he left Tréves for Italy. It was a bold step to take. The Emperor had always been head of the state religion, and the title of Pontifex was not an empty one. To abdicate it was to surrender some of the imperial pretensions. But Gratian went further than this. He resolved to strike at the roots of Roman Paganism. In the Senate-house stood an altar and statue of Victory, placed there by the Great Caesar. The statue came from Tarentum and represented the figure of a winged maiden, surmounting the globe, with a laurel wreath in her hand. Constantius had removed the altar, but Julian had ordered it to be restored. The senators were accustomed to offer incense on it, and to touch it when taking oaths. In 381 Gratian suppressed these observ- Ambrose and Gratian. The Altar of Victory. I. Zosimus, Iv. 36. 418 SYMMACHUS PLEADS, (CH. XVII. ances, and removed the altar, and perhaps the statue, from the Senate. Embassies were sent from Rome, headed by Symmachus, to implore the Emperors to restore the altar, but in vain.’ Gratian confiscated the revenues of the Temple of Victory and abolished the privileges belonging to the pontifis and vestals. The rebellion of Maximus gave the party of Symmachus fresh hopes, and on Gratian’s death it was resolved to ~ send a request to the child-Emperor Valentinian II., who with his mother Justina ruled Italy at Milan.2 Sym- machus addressed the Emperor in the name of Rome. “It appears to me,” says the illustrious Roman, “as if Rome herself stood before you and spoke in this wise— Most excellent Princes, Fathers of your country, respect, I beseech you, the years to which holy religion has allowed me to attain. Let me be permitted to follow the faith of my fathers, and you will not repent it. Let me enjoy the right of freedom and live in conformity with my customs and traditions. ‘This faith has placed the universe in subjection to my laws, these mysteries have repulsed Hannibal from my walls and the Senones from the Capitol. Have I achieved all this, only to be turned adrift in my old age? Preserve me, I implore you, from so humiliating a fate.” Ambrose answered the petition of 5 Gib and Symmachus in language betraying the Pagan nye a intolerant spirit of the new Faith, which under imperial patronage was triumphing over the old. He warns Valentinian not to presume to act till he had authority from Theodosius to do so. He also sneers at the notion that the old religion needs money to support seven Vestals, when thousands of Christian women offer themselves freely to a life of virginity. When, after the fall of Maximus, 1. An excellent summary of the arguments of Symmachus is given in Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, vol. I., p. 317 ff. They are curiously like the modern defence of an established religion. Gregorovius (Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1., c. 2) refers to Gerhard, Der Streit um den Altar der Victoria, and to Beugnot, Chute du Paganisme, vill. 6. See also Gibbon, ch. xxviii. 2. Gregorovius (of. ctt., bk. 1., c. 2, p. 67) says that it was Gratian who was addressed, but he was murdered on Aug. 25, 383. 3. Ambrose, £/. XVIII. AY) i | ‘ 2 : CH, XVI1.] THE PAGAN REVIVAL 419 Theodosius visited Italy in 388, the appeals were renewed with no better success, the heathen party resolved upon making an effort for their dishonoured goddess. In 392 Valentinian II. was murdered by Arbogast, his Frankish general, and the rhetorician Eugenius was raised to the imperial office. Though a Christian himself, the new emperor supported the heathen faction and allowed the senator Nicomachus Flavianus to restore the ancient religion in the City. The altar of Victory was replaced: the old rites were again celebrated, and the property of the temples was restored, not to the priesthood but to Flavian himself. But this triumph was only short-lived. Theodosius gained the battle of the Frigidus and entered Italy. The temples were again closed and the priests banished. The official religion was suppressed as far as it was in the power of the government to do so. We are not told what happened to the altar of Victory; but her image still appeared on the coins of the Emperor. In the pillage of the temples, Serena, wife of the celebrated general Stilicho, robbed the statue of Rhea of a costly necklace; and the last of the Vestals, who witnessed the sacrilege, foretold that the family of the spoiler would perish for her crime. , Thus the old religion fell before Fell of Fagamem its young and powerful rival the Christian Church, and legislative acts which marked its downfall are to be found in the Theodosian code under the head of De Paganis Sacrificiis et Templis. Rapid as the fall of the state religion of the Romans appears to have been at the last, it had really been the work of centuries. Scepticism, nurtured in Greece, had found a congenial soil in Rome in the latter days of the Republic. Under Augustus a revival of the ancient faith, prudently fostered by that astute ruler, had taken place; and under the Empire society had restored its religious convictions by adopting new rites, Oriental in origin and mystic in character. The Neo-Platonists had given Hellenism renewed vigour ; and in the third century the practical infidelity of Epicureanism was reprobated by devout men of all DoD Z 420 PAGANISM ABSORBED. [cH xvi, persuasions. But the attempt of Julian in the fourth century to give eclectic Hellenism a new lease of life shewed that its hold on mankind was too far relaxed to be restored. The surprising fact is that in Rome at the close of the fourth century there was a real revival of the old faith. Praetextatus, Symmachus, and Flavianus were thoroughly in earnest, and if the high-minded zeal of men of noble birth, cultured intellect, and blame- less lives, could have influenced the course of affairs Rome would have remained a Pagan city. But a Spanish emperor, backed by the public opinion of the East, and supported by men like St. Ambrose, was able to deal the ancient creed so severe a blow that it never recovered. It needed only the successive captures of Rome by Alaric and Gaiseric to complete its overthrow. Yet it cannot be denied that the aR ST OR Christianity which took the place of Christianity, the official cultus was not the pure faith of the Gospel; and that, if dogmatically it was the legitimate outcome of the teaching of the New Testament, it was often in practice a continuation of the ancient state of things under Christian forms. The life of St. Paulinus of Nola shews how gradual was the transition from faith to faith. This eminent man, the friend of St. Jerome and St. Augustine, established himself at Nola, where he erected a church in honour of the martyr Felix, for whom he felt a peculiar veneration. He spent his time in the exercise of devotion and asceticism, and in literary pursuits. His cult of St. Felix was in many ways similar to that of a local god. The poor were weaned from their paganism by being instructed to give their hereditary customs a Christian significance. The old paganism of Italy was but thinly veiled by the policy or superstition of the Christian Saint. And so it was in most places; disendowment and legislation had not killed the spirit of antiquity.’ 1. Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, bk. Iv., ch. ii. Bigg, Wayside Sketches tn Ecclesiastical History. CH. Xv1I.] INFLUENCE OF THE CLASSICS. 421 ie Nor did the Christian faith gain in and Chenty, every respect by its victory. It was too Education. incomplete to allow the conquerors to take a generous estimate of the merits of the fallen foe. After nearly fifteen centuries of domination the Church has never been able to devise a system of education to supplant the old classical one. No books have ever been written to take the place of Homer and Virgil, of Thucydides and Livy, of Plato and Cicero, in the educational system ; and Christian zealots in declaring war against heathenism were in danger of including education in thei: defiance. For the first four centuries the good sense of the Church had prevented this: but the dream of St. Jerome ‘‘ Thou art not a Christian but a Ciceronian,” heralded a new state of things. Classicalism was too ingrained in that Father to permit him to degenerate into the state of ignorance into which his successors allowed themselves to sink, but he cannot be acquitted of giving an impulse in this direction. That the in- scription on the Cross of Christ was in Hebrew, Greek and Latin is not without a profound significance. Christianity, which sprang from a Hebrew source, has never been truly progressive save in company with the spirit of the two great races from which modern civilization has derived its inspiration. The attempt to dispense with the Classics in education was, as the story of the early middle ages shews, well-nigh fatal to Christianity itself. _ Prudentius with true prophetic insight Gea ate: foretold the rise of a new glory for Rome;! and shortly before his time a bishop of the Imperial City laid the foundation of that cultus, which made her the magnet which attracted all the piety of Western Christendom for many centuries. 1. Contra Symmachum MX. 655 ff., esp. 660—664 : Nunc nunc justa meis reverentia competit annis. Nunc merito dicor venerabilis, et caput orbis, Cum galeam sub fronde oleae cristasque rubentes Concutio, viridi velans fera singula serto, Atque armata Deum sine crimine caedis adoro, A422 THE EMPRESS JUSTINA. (CH. XVIL Damasus, whose long pontificate lasted from a.p. 366—384, made it a labour of love to restore the catacombs, which bands of pilgrims had already begun to visit. He removed the earth, widened the passages, and employed the artist Furius Dionysius Filocalus to engrave on marble slabs inscriptions to the honour of the martyrs, composed by the Pope himself. It was this pontiff who buiit the Font or Baptistery of St. Peter’s, and placed in it the Chair which ancient tradition said had been used by the great Apostle. Thus Damasus gave an impetus to the growing feeling that Rome was specially favoured by the presence of the relics of primitive Christianity, and under the protection of the most holy of. the martyrs. A time was not far distant when these, and not the monuments of imperial greatness, were destined to attract men back to the ruined and devastated city. But not only had the Church triumphed Anteenene of over Paganism; the time had come when Christianity. she was strong enough to shew to the world that she was prepared to tolerate no form of Christianity but that sanctioned by her authority; even though an emperor demanded its recognition. To this the history of the dispute between St. Ambrose and Justina fully testifies. Valentinian, who died in a.p. 375, had, as we have already seen, left two sons, Gratian and the infant Valentinian II., the latter the child of his second wife, the beautiful and wayward Justina. Gratian, with characteristic amiability, allowed his brother a share in the empire; and the child Valentinian and Justina were established at Milan. St. Ambrose, who had succeeded Auxentius in A.D. 374, was a strong supporter of the Creed of Nicaea, but Justina was attached to Arian views, which had been predominant in the city previous to the election of St. Ambrose. In 385 the Empress demanded that one of the churches in Milan should be given up for the use of the Arians. 1. Gregorovius, History of Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1., ch. ii., SEC, 4. CH. XVII] . AMBROSE AND HIS FLOCK, 423 , Strictly speaking, this was prohibited RoaiieoR by a law recently published by Theodosius ; pee Dee Asiana but an imperial command was not easily wit withstood, although Ambrose had rendered no small service to Justina two years before, at the critical moment when Maximus, having slain Gratian, threatened to invade Italy. The bishop, at the entreaty of the Empress, had crossed the Alps, and had persuaded Maximus to remain for the present content with the government of Gaul, Britain, and Spain.’ Still Justina had some show of right in demanding a church for the Arians. They were numerous in Milan, and the majority of the troops, being barbarians, were adherents of the sect. The chances of the Catholics in resisting a demand made by imperial authority and backed by the soldiery would have been small indeed, had it not been for the resolute spirit shewn by the great bishop of Milan, who, like Cyprian, had gained influence over his flock by repeatedly taking them into his confidence and explaining his policy. There were apparently two, or at most three, churches in Milan; one, the Portian Basilica, being outside the walls of the city.2. This Justina claimed either for the entire, or perhaps only partial, use of the Arians. Ambrose refused to yield, and the troops were sent to take possession of the church. The people stood by their bishop, where- upon Justina imprisoned some of the richer inhabitants for contumacy. A riot occurred, in which an Arian presbyter was seized by the mob and rescued by Ambrose, who besought the people not to stain the cause of the Church by acts of violence. The soldiers who were sent were withdrawn at the request made to their officers by the bishop. The affair threatened to become serious as endangering the authority of the Emperor, and pressure was put upon Ambrose to give ‘way; but Ambrose Resistance by Ambrose. 1. St. Ambrose, #/. xx1v. Hodgkin, J/taly and her Invaders, vol. I., p. 412. 2. There seem to have been two churches in Milan, the Portian and the New Basilica. The former was outside the walls: the latter had, apparently, not yet been consecrated. There are, however, other churches mentioned iu connexion with St. Ambrose, Fausta’s Basilica, the Roman, and that of St. Felix and St. Nabor. ; 424 THE RELICS AT MILAN. [CH. XVII. declared that the Emperor had no rights over the churches —they belonged to God. Troops surrounded the Portian Basilica, but on Ambrose’s appearance they professed they had come not to molest him but to pray. As the people feared that Ambrose would be removed from Milan they guarded him in the basilica, and were taught by the bishop to occupy the time by antiphonal chanting of hymns, many of which he composed himself. A tradition, which however cannot be accepted, relates that the Te Deum was the joint work of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine at this time! For at Milan St. Augustine was sojourning during Ambrose’s period of trial, and it was the bishop’s eloquent exposition of Scripture that drew him irresistibly into the bosom of the Christian Church.2. The most celebrated hymns of St. Ambrose which St. Augustine especially admired are known from their opening words, Aeterne verum Conditor, Deus Creator omnium, Veni Redemptor Gentium, and O Lux beata Trinitas. An attempt was next made to induce Ambrose to dispute before the Emperor with an Arian bishop called Auxentius, which Ambrose, after due discussion with his presbyters, declined; and indeed a miracle was about to occur which would render all further discussion unnecessary. The long period of anxious vigil in the basilica had excited the feelings alike of the pastor - and his flock, and Ambrose’s prayer that he might dedicate a new church with suitable relics was soon to be answered. A presage, perhaps a vision, warned him to seek in the church consecrated to St. Felix and St. Nabor. Martyrs were scarce in Milan, and the increasing reverence with which their relics were regarded rendered a discovery especially opportune. As they opened the ground of the church at the spot indicated, two bodies were discovered, huge in size, such as antiquity alone produced (ut prisca aetas ferebat), with dissevered heads, and the tomb stained Discovery of Relics. 1. This tradition has now been thoroughly discredited by Dr. A. E. Burn, who has recently discovered the author of the Ze Dewm to be Nicetas of Remesiana. 2. St. Augustine, Confessions V1. 3, IX. 7- CH. XVIL] A TIMELY MIRACLE, 425 with the martyrs’ blood. The enthusiasm at this fortunate discovery knew no bounds. Miracles occurred spontaneously. Devils were cast out; a blind man received his sight. The Arians tried to discredit the miracles, but in vain. The bones of the holy martyrs Gervasius and Protasius were borne in triumph to the basilica of Ambrose, now known in Milan as the church of San Ambrogio. We are in the age of miracles, but none present such difficulties as this. We have to remember that St. Ambrose was no ignorant enthusiast, no uneducated saint, but the leading man of his age. He was not only a bishop, but a cultured gentleman of the best type. His youth had been spent not in the cloister but in the business of the empire. He remained to the end of his days a statesman as well as a bishop. He was, moreover, a singularly high-minded man, distinguished as a ruler by wisdom and common sense. Yet here we find him profiting by a miracle which would prove a strain to the most credulous.? The story of the finding of the bodies of the martyrs may be read in a letter written by Ambrose himself to his sister Marcellina. Is it credible that the bishop could have believed men who perished not a century before under Diocletian to be giant remains of an ancient race? Yet Ambrose must either have been credulous beyond all measure, or else have played on the credulity of a people worked up to a pitch of un- reasoning fanaticism, and ready to believe anything. Either the understanding or the character of St. Ambrose must suffer in our estimation. Yet it is impossible: to understand his age without taking into account both possibilities, that of excessive credulity, and that of a 1. St. Ambrose, Z%. xxul., also St, Augustine, Confess. 1x. 7 and De Civitate Dez, Xx11. 8. Gibbon says in a note to ch. xxvii., ‘* I should recommend this miracle to our divines, if it did not prove the worship of relics as well as the Nicene Creed.” Dr, Hodgkin thinks that, great as St. Ambrose was, he was not altogether exempt from the faults of his age, and that ‘‘In the strife with principalities and powers, in which he was engaged, his mind was so entirely engrossed with the nobility and holiness of his ends, that he may have been—I will not venture to say that he was —something less than scrupulous as to his means.” Hodgkin, J/aly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 440. Discussion of the miracle. 426 THEODOSIUS VISITS ITALY. (CH. XVIL want of scruple when a laudable object was to be attained. In the last days of the Roman empire we find a childish readiness to accept the miraculous side by side with virile understanding, and unscrupulous acts combined with real exhibitions of Christian virtue. A historian like Socrates, who has all a lawyer’s capacity for discerning the shortcomings of the ecclesiastics of his age, finds no monastic story impossible to believe; and Synesius speaks with unfeigned rapture of the good- ness of Theophilus, who is chiefly known to us by the discreditable attempt he made to involve St. John Chrysostom in a charge of heresy. In a case like the finding of the relics of Gervasius and Protasius it is best to accept the story as an illustration of the spirit of the age. The old spirit of Paganism was strong in the populace of Milan, and was perhaps not altogether extinct in the breast of its saintly bishop. . The success of the discovery of the Rebel’ion of relics was undoubted. Arianism was beaten down, and Justina was powerless to resist Ambrose. Soon indeed the Empress had to entreat his assistance. Maximus in A.D. 387 prepared to . advance into Italy, and Ambrose again crossed the Alps to intercede for Valentinian. This time, however, he was unsuccessful. Maximus turned a deaf ear to the arguments of Ambrose, and prepared to invade the dominions of the boy emperor, who with his mother and sisters escaped to the court of Theodosius. The misfortunes of the family and the beauty of the Emperor’s sister Galla induced Theodosius to take the field in defence of the rights of Valentinian II., and to lead his forces against Maximus in person. Maximus was abandoned by his army, and the victorious emperor reinstated his young colleague in a.p. 389. It was now that Theodosius came face to face with St. Ambrose, the first real bishop, as he admitted, he had ever known. act i We have already seen how unflinching Theodosius, W2S the attitude assumed by Ambrose on the question of restoring to the heathen party at Rome any of its lost privileges; and the same spirit was displayed in maintaining the dignity of the Church. Hitherto the triumphs of Ambrose had ees ee a a ae ee ee Mey ae ee CH. XvJI.] AMBROSE REBUKES THEODOSIUS. 427 been over a woman and a boy; but he was now to shew the world that he could be equally firm in dealing with the great emperor who had restored peace to the shattered empire by subduing both the Gothic hordes who had gained the day at Adrianople and the usurper Maximus. ‘Theodosius at the height of his glory had to acknowledge the moral ascendancy of Ambrose. After his victory’ over Maximus, Theodosius was strongly urged by Ambrose to shew clemency to the fallen; and the Emperor’s disposition induced him to listen favourably to the bishop’s appeal. Unfortunately, however, a Christian prelate of this age, though always ready to use his eloquence in favour of political offenders, felt in honour bound to support the action of other bishops, even when it did not accord with the principles of justice. The bishop at Callinicum, an obscure town in the East, had not restrained a Christian mob led by fanatical monks from destroying a Jewish synagogue and a Gnostic church, The Jews, at any rate, were under the protection of the law of the empire, and no ruler could pass over such an outrage. Theodosius ordered the bishop to rebuild the synagogue, and the rioters to be punished. It was however considered unlawful under any circumstances for a Christian to contribute to the erection ofa building for false religion, a belief which had been the cause of many persecutions in the days of Julian. Monks also were regarded with superstitious reverence ; and it was deemed an outrage to punish acts inspired by zeal for God. Ambrose was not above the sentiments of his age, and though naturally just and a lover of order, his eyes were on this occasion blinded by pre- judice. Theodosius was present in the church, and the bishop of Milan directed his sermon to the Emperor, who seeing that he had been publicly attacked, enquired the cause, and Ambrose admitted that he had inten- tionally addressed his remarks to him. The bishop declared that he could not proceed to offer the sacrifice till the Emperor had rescinded his order. With this demand Theodosius at once complied.’ 1. St. Ambrose, Zp. xL., to Theodosius; XL1., to hts sister, The arguments in favour of pardoning the bishop whose flock had burned the 428 MASSACRE OF THESSALONICA. [cH. Xvi1. The best-known story concerning Ambrose and Theodosius is one redounding highly to the credit of the former, as it shews him in the light of a bishop rebuking sin and a statesman hating acts of cruelty and violence perpetrated under pretext of justice. Though as a rule inclined to justice The Massacre of and humanity, Theodosius was liable to furious outbursts of rage in which he gave orders more befitting an oriental despot than the head of the Roman state. In a.p. 390 he was greatly provoked by the outrageous conduct of the people of Thessalonica. The commander of the imperial troops, who bore the Gothic name of Botheric, had put to death a popular charioteer, for a crime which has always been justly reprobated by the northern nations of Europe, but was regarded as almost trivial among a southern people, accustomed for generations to heathen immorality. The mob rose and murdered Botheric, and Theodosius gave orders for a general massacre of the guilty people. Seven thousand persons perished at the hands of the soldiery, and the whole circumstances of the butchery were exceptionally dreadful. There are two accounts of what ensued. Ambrose himself and his biographer Paulinus say that the Em- peror, after receiving a letter of rebuke, did public penance and grieved for his sin for the rest of his life. Theodoret relates how Theodosius, after keeping away from church for eight months, attempted to enter it on Christmas Day, but was met by Ambrose, who reproved him, and would not allow him to be present at the Eucharist till he had done penance and enacted a law that no criminal should be put to death till thirty days had elapsed after the sentence had been pronounced. No trace of such a law remains, and this latter version of the story is scarcely credible.} synagogue are extraordinary, Even if the bishop collected the mob and attacked the synagogue, he will be a martyr if he is punished for refusing to contribute to its reconstruction! The letter contains a true tribute to the natural clemency of the Emperor Theodosius. 1. St. Ambrose, Zf. Lt. Theodoret, & #. v. 18, Of St. Ambrose’s Epistle, Gibbon (ch. xxvii.) says, “ His epistle is a miserable rhapsody on a noble subject. Ambrose could act better than he could write.’ ——————— ee CH. XVII.} RIOT AT ANTIOCH. 429 Phe Biases Three years earlier an event had oc- at Antioch, CUrred in the East illustrative both of the impetuosity and of the clemency of Theodosius. Antioch, the capital of the East, was the scene of a formidable riot. The demand for money for a donative to the soldiers had roused the populace to fury ; and in their rage they stormed the praetorium and proclaimed themselves the enemies of the Emperor by casting down his statues and those of his family. No insults were spared, the portraits of the Emperor and of his deceased wife Flacilla were defaced with mud and torn to shreds, and the statues dragged through the streets. When the people realised what had been done they were panic-stricken at the fate which probably awaited the guilty city. By the mad folly of the mob the inhabitants of the wealthiest and most populous city of the East were placed at the mercy of the Emperor. The outrage took place on February 26, 387; and Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, leaving the death- bed of his sister, hastened to Constantinople to implore the clemency of Theodosius. The entire season of Lent was consequently one of dreadful anticipation. At last the imperial commissioners arrived with the sentence of the Emperor. Considering the extreme gravity of the offence, it was unexpectedly lenient. The baths and theatres of the city were to be closed; the public distri- bution of corn was to cease; and the city was reduced from her proud position as the capital of the East to that of dependence on the neighbouring town of Laodicea. An enquiry was also held as to the circumstances of the riot, and many of the principal inhabitants were arrested and imprisoned; nor were they spared those tortures which then accompanied judicial examinations. The crime of the leading citizens was that of not having foreseen and prevented the riot. The terrified people betook themselves JohnChrysostom’s to the churches. The whole city became foeotaer a scene of prayer and supplication. From the mountains swarms of solitaries, in strange attire and of squalid appearance, came into Antioch to be welcomed as very angels of mercy. Secure of public reverence, and undismayed at the 430 DEATH OF THEODOSIUS, [cH. xvi. authority of the commissioners, the monks boldly protested against ill-using men for the sake of stone images. Never did the power of the new religion manifest itself more brightly than at this dreadful time. But the eyes of all were fixed on one figure, that of the great preacher, John of the Golden-Mouth, the presbyter, known to us as St. John Chrysostom. Every day he spoke words of comfort and exhortation to the terrified people, reminding them that the present expectation of a worldly judgment was but a type of a more dreadful sentence awaiting sinners. Never were sermons preached under more dramatic circumstances, and with more effect, than the twenty-one discourses of Chrysostom ‘on the Statues’. At last Flavian returned just before Easter with the glad tidings that Antioch was pardoned, and on Easter Day John preached the last of his series, describing the interview between the aged bishop and the Emperor. Many heathen were converted by the experiences of that fearful Lent, and Chrysostom had no light task in instructing those he had won from idolatry by his eloquence, in the principles of the true Faith. Theodosius was in Italy from 388— Serene Aer 391; but no sooner had he returned to the of Theolnings Hast, leaving Valentinian II. as Emperor in Italy. of the West, than the latter’s incapacity became manifest. Arbogast, a powerful _ Frankish general, supported by the heathen party in Rome, put the Emperor to death, and set up the rhetorician Eugenius in his place. Once more Theodosius had to visit Italy; and it was only after a severe engagement by the river Frigidus, in a.p. 394, that Arbogast was overthrown. Eugenius suffered the fate of all pretenders; and Theodosius and his infant son Honorius visited Rome in triumph. But the career of the Emperor was run. He died at Milan a.p. 395. Ambrose survived him two years, passing away in A.D. 397. Jews, heretics, and pagans joined with the Christians in mourning the loss of the great bishop. Theodosius and St. Ambrose represent the Chris- tianity of their age. Judged by almost any standard they were great men, yet it cannot be denied that they - both unintentionally left behind a heritage of evil. cH. xvi.] |= AN ORTHODOX EMPEROR. 431 It was Theodosius who formulated a policy of intoler- ance, and St. Ambrose who set the example of sacerdotal arrogance. The edicts of the Emperor paved the way for the establishment of the Inquisition, whilst Ambrose’s example was really followed by those pontiffs who placed their foot on the necks of emperors. But it is not always just to judge individuals by the remote results of their lives. Ambrose and Theodosius were but typical of the spirit of their age. The fourth century was the parent of what we term mediaevalism. Theodosius was a true Spaniard, a born soldier, capable of great deeds, but needing the stimulus of necessity to arouse his energies. A certain indolence seems to have come over him when no crisis threatened, rendering him a negligent ruler save in times of emergency.! His religious disposition was that of his native country, easily impressed by sacerdotal pretensions, and perhaps inclined to fanaticism. Ambrose obtained his influence over Theodosius by insisting on the sacred dignity of his office, much in the same way as her confessor won the respect of Isabella the Catholic.” The cruelty of Theodosius was characteristically Spanish. By nature a clement and merciful sovereign, he was capable of giving ferocious commands and issuing severe edicts, especially against religious errors. For Theodosius, as we have seen, inaugurated a deliberate system of persecution, departing from the impartial attitude of Valentinian I. towards the religious opinions of his subjects. He undoubtedly possessed great qualities. During his reign the Roman empire maintained its place in the world, and the disintegration threatened Character of Theodosius. in the days of Valens was arrested for nearly twenty years. The rapid collapse which followed the death of Theodosius is a testimony to his administrative powers. His dynasty lasted longer than that of any of his predecessors, and his descendants ruled both in 1. Hodgkin, /taly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 587. 2. Prescott, Merdinand and Isabella, ch. vii. Fray Fernando de Talavera, when Queen Isabella made her confession to him, refused to kneel beside her as was the custom, saying that he was acting as God’s minister and should sit. Isabella, with her usual good sense, declared that he was the confessor she desired. 432 A GREAT CHURCHMAN, ~ (CH. XVII. the Eastern and Western Empires. None of the men of the family inherited his abilities; but two of his female descendants, his daughter Galla Placidia and his granddaughter Pulcheria, were not altogether unworthy having sprung from Theodosius the Great. St. Ambrose was a great churchman of nacter in a period of transition. The Roman virtues which were disappearing in the State were transferring their energies to the Church. And Ambrose was a typical Roman. If Probus told him to govern his province as if he were a bishop, he ruled his diocese with the firmness of a secular governor of the best type. He might divest himself of this world’s offices and goods; but he remained at heart a Roman noble. It was to him that Justina looked when an embassy of the highest political importance, like that to Maximus, had to be undertaken. It is difficult to acquit Ambrose of shewing a political dexterity characteristic of an Italian priest in his contest with the Arians, especially in the matter of the discovery of the relics. He shared in the religious prejudices of his age, in the almost unreasoning admiration for a celibate life, which characterises all the great Fathers both Latin and Greek. He may not have been superior to the. cre- dulity of his time, he cannot certainly be acquitted of displaying in his acts a hierarchical spirit. Butin atime when the State was daily failing to preserve its citizens or — to influence their morals, it may be questioned whether what we term ‘priestly arrogance’ was not the neces- sary assertion of the claim of Christ’s religion on man’s allegiance. Like those of most men of action, the writings of Ambrose display more industry than originality; but his style is pure and his thought robust. His recorded acts and sayings reveal excellent common sense. The man who could sell the conse- crated plate of his church to redeem captives, who in a matter of religious custom ‘did at Rome as the Romans do’, and who told the minister of Valentinian, who threatened him, that he would die as a bishop whilst. the minister would act as a eunuch, must have had largeness of heart, breadth of mind, and calm courage. After making every allowance we may un- CH. Xvi] THE FOURTH CENTURY. 433 hesitatingly pronounce St. Ambrose to have been a truly great man. ‘The force of character that could have so impressed Theodosius, and above all the eloquence and spiritual power which won St. Augustine to Christianity, are sufficient proofs of this. Ambrose is worthy to close the century which saw the work of Athanasius and the three Cappadocians. » For good and evil the fourth century Importance is most important to the Christian Church. e ee The incidents are so crowded and various that it is in itself an epitome of Church history. Its results are among the most permanent in the story of mankind. Hardly a feature of mediaeval life is not traceable to this age. A century which witnessed the triumph of the martyrs, the settlement of the creed of Christendom, the beginnings of mon- asticism, the discovery of the Holy Places at Jerusalem, the fall of Paganism, and the first establishment of the Papal power, can hardly be second in importance to any save to that in which the Founder of Christianity appeared on earth, EE CHAPTER XVIII. THE EASTERN CHURCH AND THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERAL COUNCILS. WitH the death of Theodosius the Virtual partition Empire, if united in theory, became for Empire. all practical purposes divided into two separate and even rival monarchies, the Eastern and the Western. Arcadius, the elder son of the late emperor, ruled at Constantinople; his younger. brother, Honorius, at Rome, or rather at Ravenna. But neither emperor possessed sufficient character to be other than a tool in the hands of powerful court or military officials. That they were suffered to live is the greatest proof of their inability to reign, since it was easier for the politician whose star happened to be in the ascendant to rule in their name. The two courts, however, were distrustful of each other; and for the first time in Roman history it is convenient, if not strictly accurate, to speak of one part of the Empire as Eastern and of the other as Western. In the present chapter it is our purpose to confine our attention to the Eastern provinces. The reign of Anoatiiie was a reign of court favourites and barbarian military chieftains. Before, however, recounting their rise and fall it may be well to trace the career of the most original of the bishops of the period—Synesius of Cyrene. His transition from a Neo-Platonic philo- sopher to a Christian ruler is as characteristic of the age, as is the story of the calamities which his native province of Cyrene endured in his life-time. Synesius. CH. XVIII.] SYNESIUS BEFORE ARCADIUS. 435 His connexion with Arcadius consists i Oration att in having delivered an address in the ingly Office. Presence of that emperor, the tone of which is so bold as to render it difficult to believe that any man could have dared to pronounce it before the ruler of half the Roman world. Synesius visited Constantinople in A.D. 397, and by the influence of Aurelian, the leader of the anti-German party in Constantinople,! he was allowed to pronounce an oration before the Emperor on the ‘ Kingly Office’. A king, he says, must be above all things pious. Next to this he must be a soldier, war being as much his trade as that of a shoemaker is making shoes. A king to know his business must live among men experienced in war. But the orator, speaking of Arcadius and his brother Honorius, says: ‘You see nothing, you hear nothing which can give you any practical wisdom. Your only pleasures are the most sensual pleasures of the body. Your life is the life of a sea-anemone.” The chief danger of the Roman state was the habitual employment of barbarians as soldiers in the place of free citizens of the empire; Synesius exhorts the Emperor to dismiss the Scythians, and to draw his troops from the inhabitants of his provinces who were engaged in agriculture. Then he goes on to speak of the duties of the king in peace, warning the Emperor against unworthy and venal fa- vourites, and exhorting him to the study of philosophy.* The whole speech is an attack on the system of the court and government of Arcadius, and we shall soon see how just the strictures of Synesius were. In this speech there is not the Synesius silent slightest allusion to Christianity, though about : . a tes Christianity, the duty of piety is earnestly insisted upon. The same silence is observable in all the pre-Christian writings of Synesius. His creed I. Synesius gives a description of the strife between Aurelian, under the name of Osiris, and his ‘brother’ Typhos, in the allegory entitled Concerning Providence or the Egyptians; see Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, bk. 11., chap. ii. Miss Gardner, Syneszus of Cyrene, p. 42. 2. Dict. Chr. Biog., vol. 1V., art. ‘Synesius’. This article, by the late Mr. T. R. Halcombe, extending over nearly fifty columns, is almost in itself a complete biography. Prof. Bury (oc. czt.) says the oration is the anti-German manifesto of the Roman party of Aurelian. EE2 436 ECLECTICISM OF THE AGE. [cu. xvu. was at this time a sort of eclectic philosophy, yet in his hymn to God written on his return from Constantinople he speaks of praying in the “temples”’ there, by which he must mean the churches. Well has it been said of him, “The picture of a pagan philosopher praying in a Christian church to the saints and angels of Christianity, while investing them with the attributes of the daemons of Neo-Platonism, is no bad illustration of the almost unconscious manner in which the pagan world in becoming Christian was then paganizing Christianity. As thoroughly eclectic in religion as in philosophy, Synesius took from Christianity whatever harmonized with the rest of his creed, often varying the meaning of the tenets he borrowed to bring them into accordance with his philosophical ideas.” Interesting as the study of the philo- sophical views of Synesius is, an account of them scarcely belongs to Church history; but his description of his life in the rural districts of the province of Cyrene, where he lived on his estates, is too illustrative of the age to be passed over in silence. The people, he remarks, though com- pletely ignorant of public affairs, all seem to have known the stories in the Odyssey. ‘‘ The good herdsmen speak of Ulysses as a bald-headed man, but clever in finding his way out of difficulties. They roar with — laughter when they talk of him, as if it was but last year that he blinded the Cyclops.” They seem not to have had any idea who was the ruling emperor; they only knew that the tax-gatherer came annually. None of them had seen the sea, and they could not believe that fish taken from it could be good for food.2» Among these simple folk Synesius lived, hunting, farming, and composing his treatises and letters to friends. ea tS But like all the provinces, Cyrene, at invade Cyrene. the beginning of the fifth century, was being overrun by marauding barbarians. The governors were incredibly weak and corrupt. The province of Cyrene. 1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Synesius’, vol. tv., p. 7726. Miss Gardner, Synesius of Cyrene, pp. 46, 71 ff. 2. In a letter to his brother Evoptius, Dzct. Chr. Bzog., art. * Synesius’, vol. 1v., p. 760. Miss Gardner, Synesius of Cyrene, p. 49 f. CH. XVIII] “PROVINCIAL ANARCHY, 437 Cerealis, whom Synesius found on his return from Constantinople, was only a type of the official of the age. The troops were under no discipline. The native soldiers were allowed to go where they could get main- tenance, whilst the foreign mercenaries oppressed the towns till they were bribed to quit them. The people would have fought, but the government would not arm them. Even when Synesius raised and equipped irregular troops to repel the barbarians with some success, he exposed himself to a charge of treason. The clergy armed their flocks; and Synesius relates how on one occasion after a church service they made an attack on the barbarians at the instigation of the valiant Faustus, a deacon, who, though himself unharmed, slew several men with his own hand. After the recall of Cerealis, a more vigorous administration soon cleared the country of barbarians; but the government was too corrupt to continue a salutary policy long, and in opposition to law and custom a native of the province, named Andronicus, was made governor. Andronicus was a man of low origin, who was believed to have obtained his office by bribery. Great indignation was felt at the appointment, and Synesius in the name of the inhabitants of Cyrene protested in a letter to a friend at Constantinople. Since the introduction of the Christian aaa eas faith the people of an oppressed province A.D. 409. had one resource. They could not prevent the Emperor appointing whom he would over them, but they could choose for themselves a pro- tector in the person of a bishop. The independence of the clergy and their resolute assertion of their position was due to no selfish desire for class privileges. The Christian bishop had become the people’s Tribune, the spokesman of a city or province in the face of an oppressive ruler. To defend them from Andronicus, the inhabitants of Ptolemais, the capital of Cyrene, chose Synesius as 1. Cyrene received as governor ‘fa man from the tunny fisheries”, Andronicus by name, an extortionate, rapacious and vicious man. Glover, Life and Letters in the Fourth Century, p. 357. 438 SCRUPLES OF SYNESIUS. (CH. XVIII their bishop. He remonstrated vigorously at their selection ; but left the case in the hands of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, whom he regarded with the highest reverence. He feared that he would be un- acceptable because his views on the Resurrection were not such as the multitude held, and nothing would induce him to surrender what he believed to be truth ; for to Synesius “to be almost or altogether truthful is to be almost or altogether divine’. He also declined to put away his wife, or to live without further hope of children.2 Theophilus, though he had but little genuine sympathy with the Origenistic views of Synesius, overcame his scruples and induced him to accept the bishopric. This was in A.D. 410; and when the new bishop returned to Ptolemais he found Andronicus had justified the apprehension of the provincials by acting as a ruthless tyrant. The prisons were full, and the torturers kept in constant requisition. At first Synesius remonstrated ; but finding his words had no effect, he proceeded to excommunicate the governor. The mere threat of such a proceeding, even at this early date, had begun to be too terrible to be resisted; and before the letter of the church of Ptolemais had been sent to the other churches, Andron- icus professed penitence. For a time the sentence was withheld; but when Andronicus relapsed into his former cruelty it was promulgated. Soon afterwards the governor was deprived of his office. Synesius, however, lived to see even worse times, as the barbarians poured once more into the defenceless province. His children died; and there was nothing but desolation and misery 1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. §Synesius’, vol. IV., p. 775a, 2. Synesius thus states his position. ‘‘Iam married. God and the law and the sacred hand of Theophilus gave me my wife, and I do not wish to part from her at all. Further, philosophy is opposed to many current dogmata. (a) I do not think the soul is made after the body, (6) nor that the world and all its parts will be destroyed. (c) The Resur- rection as preached I count as sacred mystery, and am far from accepting the general idea. (a) To conceal the truth is philosophically sound,... but I cannot obscure these opinions now.... I shall be sorry to give up sports. (My poor dogs!) But I will: and I will endure business, as a means of doing service to God. But my mind and my tongue must not be at variance.” See Glover, of cét., p. 350. Miss Gardner, Synestus of Cyrene, pp. 91 ff. ‘ Bea! at. ‘ oS a be, _— CH. xvi.) INTRIGUES AT CONSTANTINOPLE. 439 on all sides. The bishop retained his love of philosophy to the end, his last letter being addressed to the famous Neo-Platonist Hypatia, herself now of mature years,) and destined to perish miserably. His last poem was a hymn to Christ. Thus Synesius truly represents his age; an impossible character in any other century, he stands at the parting of the ways. ; If the life of Synesius shews the de- Beige Ww plorable condition of the provinces of the A.D. 395—408. Eastern Empire, the rule of Arcadius illus- trates the condition of Constantinople. This emperor reigned from a.p. 395—408, during which period he passed from the influence of one favourite to that of another. The first was Rufinus, the instigator of Theodosius in the infamous massacre of Thessalonica (A.D. 390).2 He was an opponent of Stilicho, the powerful general of Honorius; but his influence over Arcadius was interrupted by the return of the army of Theodosius from Italy, when Gainas the Goth, a supporter of the military faction, put him to death. The eunuch Eutropius managed to occupy the place of the fallen favourite till a.p. 399, when, owing to the accusations of Gainas and of the Empress Eudoxia, he was first disgraced and banished, and afterwards, on further charges of treason being made against him, was recalled from his place of exile and put to death. After the fall of Eutropius, Gainas attempted to make himself master of Constantinople; but he was driven out of the city, and finally defeated and slain in January, 401. In the following year we find Alaric, the Gothic general, invading Italy at the instigation of the court of Arcadius: but he was defeated by Stilicho at the battle of Pollentia (a.p. 403).8 Disorder, incapacity and treachery are the unenviable characteristics of the first 1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Synesius’, vol. tv., p. 7804. In his early days Synesius had been her pupil at Alexandria. See also Kingsley’s Hypatia. In this romance the author has, perhaps necessarily, represented his heroine as young and beautiful. 2. Theodoret, H. #. v.18. Ambrose, Z/. LIItI. Claudian, De Bello Getico, 555 ff. An oracle told Alaric, penetrabis ad Urbem; he reached a river named ‘ Urbis’, near Pollentia. But before ten years had elapsed the oracle had been fulfilled! Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vol. 1., p- 719. 440 EARLY DAYS OF CHRYSOSTOM. [cu. xviit. years of the reign of Arcadius ; and these help to explain the cruel persecution of St. John Chrysostom, whom the eunuch Eutropius had brought to the capital as its bishop. | We have met with this celebrated Christian preacher at Antioch in a.p. 387, during the days following the destruction of the imperial statues. He was born about a.D. 347, the son of an “illustrious” general called Secundus and Anthusa.' His father died when John was still a child, and his mother refused all offers of marriage that she might educate her son and administer his property. Like many other famous men of his time, the emperor Julian and St. Basil for example, John was a pupil of Libanius, the celebrated Sophist, who, according to Sozomen, declared on his death-bed (a.p. 395) that of all his disciples John was most worthy to succeed him, “if the Christians had not stolen him from us.”? John began by practising as an advocate; but the example of his friend Basil (not St. Basil of Caesarea) led him to withdraw from worldly pursuits, and he was baptized by Meletius when about twenty-four years of age. Owing to the entreaties of his mother, John did not forsake his home to practise austerities with his friends, Basil, Theodore (afterwards bishop of Mopsuestia) and Diodore (bishop of Tarsus); but he began to lead a strictly ascetic life in his own house.? In a.p. 374, however, his life was endangered by a strange accident, and he resolved to embrace monastic practices. At the time when the laws against Parysostom'§ magic (owing to the suspicions of the emperor Valens) were most zealously enforced, Chrysostom and a friend were walking near Antioch by the Orontes. Seeing a book floating on the water he picked it up and began to examine its contents. To his horror it was a work on magic, and a soldier was observed to be approaching. Detection meant death; and there was nothing for it but to throw away the volume into the river. Happily the soldier did not see what the friends had done, and they were saved. 1. Sozomen, #. £. VIII. 2. 2. Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, 1., C. 5. St. John Chrysostom. CH. XvIIL] JEALOUSY OF THEOPHILUS. 441 But the incident made a profound impression on John’s mind! He abandoned himself to solitude and severe ascetic discipline for six years. When failing health compelled him to return to Antioch, he was ordained deacon by Meletius, and priest by Flavian. For sixteen years, A.D. 381—397, he was the great preacher of the church of his native city. Chrysostom On the death of Nectarius in a.p. 397 Bishop of | Eutropius resolved to make Chrysostom Constantinople. bishop of the Imperial city. There were two obstacles to his plan. The people of Antioch were as determined to retain their great orator as he was unwilling to leave them; and ‘Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, who was apparently at Constantinople at this time, had a candidate of his own, a certain Isidore, whose election, owing to his being privy to some com- promising transactions, it was his interest to promote. But Eutropius was not easily foiled. John was decoyed outside Antioch, placed in a public conveyance and hurried away as a prisonerto the capital. Theophilus had to submit to necessity; and on February 26, a.p. 398, he consecrated John bishop of Constantinople. But a bishop of Alexandria was not to be thwarted with impunity, and Chrysostom had now for his enemy the most powerful prelate in the Eastern world. The new Patriarch presented a strange contrast to the people around him. He was a small delicate man, wasted in body by asceticism, with a lofty forehead furrowed with wrinkles, pale cheeks, and limbs so long in proportion 1. Hom. in Act, Apost. 38, in fine. Dean Stephens, Lzfe of Chry- Sostom, Pp. 57. 2. Socrates, VI. 2. Soz., vit. 2. Isidore had been onea very delicate mission to Rome on behalf of Theophilus. He had congratulatory letters to both Theodosius and Maximus, with instructions to present the one addressed to the victor. He gave Theodosius the letter addressed to him, and told Theophilus that he had ‘lost’ the one written to Maximus. Chrysostom was duly elected by the clergy and people of Constantinople. . Sozomen, H. #. vit. 2. Socrates, vi. 2. The chief authority for the life of St. John Chrysostom is a Dialogue between a bishop and a deacon, by Palladius. It is a strongly partisan work composed by an adherent of Chrysostom in exile at Rome for his opinions. Whether this Palladius is also the author of the Lausiac History of Egyptian Monasticism is uncertain, See Dzct, Chr. Biog., and, The Lausiac History of Palladius by Dom Butler (Zexts and Studies), p. 175. 442 ELOQUENCE OF CHRYSOSTOM. [cH. xvi. to his body that he compares himself to “a spider”. He was an indefatigable student, cared little for society, and his weak digestion and ascetic habits forbade his indulging in any approach to conviviality.2 Simple in his habits, and hating display, Chrysostom was not disposed to associate with the great officials of the empire with whom his position brought him in contact. He habitually withdrew from intercourse with the world, and perhaps displayed excessive petulance in his dealings with those outside his own circle. The luxurious clergy of the city felt the simple life of the new bishop a reproach to themselves, and hated him accordingly.® But at first his superb eloquence carried all before it. Eudoxia was his most ardent disciple. At the translation of some relics, she took part in the procession clad in her royal purple.‘ The simple-minded bishop was delighted with such piety and condescension on the part of the Empress. But Chrysostom was not content to bask in the sunshine either of imperial or of popular favour. Constantinople was full of Goths attached to the army, and the bishop determined that these should not be without Christian privileges. A church was set apart for them, and services. conducted in the Gothic tongue.’ Chrysostom preached to them himself, through an interpreter, and sent missionaries to convert their heathen brethren who still lived the life of nomads by the Danube. His zeal for missions was conspicuous; Chrysostom’s success. 1. Sozomen, viil. 2. Socr., vi. 3. In personal appearance Chry- sostom, as described by contemporary writers, though dignified was not imposing. His stature was diminutive (cwuartov), his limbs long, and he was so much emaciated by early austerities and habitual self-denial that he compares himself to a spider (dpaxvddns), Zp. 1v., § 4). Dict. Chr. Biog., vol I., p. 5310. 2. Socrates, VI. 4. Palladius, pp. ror-102. 3. Socrates, Vi. 4. Sozomen (VIII. 7) says: 8re undert cvvjcbcrev ovd5e ér’ éoriaciw Kadovpevos barjxove—his early asceticism having made him subject to headaches and disorders of the stomach. 4. Sozomen, vill. 8. Socr. v1. 8. Socrates says that the effect was not altogether good, as riots took place between the Arians and Orthodox. 5. Theodoret, v.30. adrés re yap 7a mrelora éxeice Hoirav diehéyeTo Epunvevty xpwmevos TP éxarépay yOccav émiorapévy tivl Kal Tovs héyew émtorauévous robro mapeckevate Spav. Hodgkin, /taly and her Invaders, vol. I., p. 697. Theodoret, H. #. v. 30, 31. Stephens, of. cz#., p. 238. CH. xvi.] © CHRYSOSTOM UNPOPULAR. 443 for he encouraged Leontius, bishop of Ancyra, to unite with him in the task of converting the Goths; and even during his exile he shewed his anxiety for the work he had inaugurated. He was assisted by the noble ladies of Constantinople in the demolition of the idol temples in Phoenicia, large funds being required for workmen to complete the destruction of these massive structures. Chrysostom had also the courage to oppose the powerful Gothic chieftain Gainas, who demanded the use of a place of worship for the Arians, a request seconded by the timid Arcadius.* But all the time John was raising up for himself powerful enemies. The clergy were corrupt, luxurious, and sensual. Few of the priests of Constantinople were free from the vices of a great city, many of them being guilty of serious offences against moral purity. The practice of introducing spiritual sisters into their houses gave rise to no small scandal: some clergy had even resorted to crimes of violence? John had no compunction in waging war against this clerical immorality: some were deposed, others excommunicated, by him. The chief odium fell on the archdeacon Serapion, who had great influence over the bishop, and is reported to have told him in an assembly of the clergy, “ You will never be able, Bishop, to master these mutinous priests unless you drive them before you with a single rod.’* ‘The position of bishop of Constantinople was, moreover, an exceedingly difficult one. The Second General Council, in giving the see the precedency of all Churches save that of Rome, had assigned to it no jurisdiction over other bishops; and the second prelate in the em- pire was placed in the anomalous position of being ecclesiastically a suffragan of the bishop of Heraclea, as Exarch of Thrace.‘ Chrysostom consequently made many enemies by acting as if he had authority over Causes of his unpopularity. 1. Sozomen, Vil. 4. Theodoret, v. 32. 2. Chrysostom’s treatise Contra eos gut subintroductas habent. Stephens, of. cz#., p. 220. 3. Socrates, VI. 4. 4. Council Const., Cazon 3. Metropolitan authority over Thrace and Pontus was given to Constantinople by the Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28. Bingham, Axizg., 1X., c& 4, sec. 2. 444 LUXURY DENOUNCED. | [CH. XVIII. the bishops of Asia Minor, and by deposing several — of them during a visitation he made in the winter of 401. While Chrysostom was away from Constantinople, he left his affairs in the hands of Severian, bishop of Gabala, who used the opportunity to form a party against. him in his absence. The great ladies of Considatina ta were soon destined to be offended by the candour of the bishop; for Chry- sostom was no popular orator, but a stern preacher of righteousness. He had no sympathy with luxury, and very little with wealth. He regarded useless profusion as an insult to poverty, and he once declared publicly, on the occasion of an earthquake, that “the vices of the rich had caused it, and the prayers of the poor had averted its worst consequences.” But Chry- sostom did not confine himself to generalities. He attacked the fashionable vices of the age. His un- sparing eloquence lashed alike the men who insisted on having boot-laces of silk,! and the ladies who re- paired their faded charms with rouge and white lead. The gluttony of the rich filled him with disgust, nor had he any mercy on the extravagant employment of gold and silver for personal adornment and for almost every vessel used in the houses of the opulent. He advocated liberality to the poor, dwelling perhaps — too little on the duty of giving with discretion. Three gay widows, the friends of Eudoxia, were specially incensed against the preacher. Marsa, Castricia and Eugraphia (the latter being not inaptly named since she used rouge and cosmetics to increase her beauty) were the leaders of society, and could not fail to be offended by the bold language of the bishop. Eudoxia espoused the side of her friends and became the enemy of Chrysostom.? Chrysostom and the rich. The waning popularity of the Arch- of Thoughts bishop gave his bitter and watchful enemy, Theophilus, an opportunity of which he was not slow to avail himself; and a pretext 1. Jn Matt., Hom. xlix., quoted by Stephens, p. 227. 2. Stephens, p. 383. Palladius, Dza/og., p. 74. CH. XVIII} THE MONKS AND THEOPHILUS. 445 for interfering with the Church of Constantinople soon presented itself. Origen’s teaching had commanded the admiration of most of the great divines of the fourth century. The boldness and originality of the master’s thoughts had not deterred Christian doctors trained in the universities of the Empire from the study of his works. Basil and the two Gregorys had openly expressed their admiration for his genius, and almost every theologian of note at the close of the century was an Origenist.! But the temper of the fifth century was not so liberal, owing to the rising influence of the uneducated monks. Already the antagonism between Christianity and culture, both of which Origen represented, began to be manifested. Theophilus, the friend and spiritual adviser of Synesius, was not exempt from the fascination which Origen had exercised over all educated men; nor was St. Jerome, the greatest scholar of the Western Church, at this time in learned retirement at Bethlehem. But the majority of the monks heard with horror that God must not be thought of as possessing anything like a human form, regarding as blasphemous all attempts to explain away such passages of Scripture as alluded to the hands or eyes of God. Origen’s dread of anthropomorphism caused him to be looked upon by the monks as the chief teacher of heresy, whilst the speculations hazarded in his De Principiis led many others to distrust his system.? As a consequence the Origenistic controversy soon began to convulse the East. St. Jerome, forgetting his previous admiration of Origen, plunged into the thick of the fray as the opponent of his doctrines in Palestine; and his un- dignified abuse of his former friend Rufinus testifies The Origenists. 1. Especially the Cappadocians, Basil and the two Gregorys. Harnack, A7zst. of Dogma, vol. Iv., pp. 84 ff. 2. Epiphanius includes Origen among the heretics, and charges him with (a) allegorising the accounts of Creation and Paradise ; (6) denying the resurrection of the natural body; (c) teaching that the Son was created, and that He does not see the Father; (@) teaching that Christ’s kingdom will have an end ; (¢) affirming that the devil will repent and be restored to his former glory, and be made equal with Christ. Dzct. Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Origenistic Controversies’, vol. IV., p. 146a. 446 ORIGENISM DENOUNCED. (CH. XVIII. ° to the intense bitterness of feeling engendered by the dispute.} The anti-Origenists secured the sup- port of one bishop whose reputation for learning and sanctity assisted their cause, whilst his prejudices and ignorance of the world made him the tool of unscrupulous intriguers. St. Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia and metropolitan of Cyprus, author of the Ancoratus, and of that monument of erudition, the Panarion, a description of all the heresies up to his day, fanned the flame of discord in Palestine, and became the agent of Theophilus in his contest with Chrysostom. Epiphanius. The zeal of the monks of Egypt against Origen had alarmed Theophilus. To them a God without human attri- butes was inconceivable, and the words of Serapion, one of the most aged and respected among them, when he heard of such an idea, “‘ They have taken away my God, and I know not what to worship,” expressed the sentiments of many.? —The monks, formidable for their reputation for sanctity and their number, over-awed Theophilus, and at last he consented to anathematize the writings of Origen. ee But the monks of Egypt were not Brothers, @ll of them ignorant fanatics. The Nitrian desert in the neighbourhood of Alexandria was full of admirers of Origen, among whom were four aged brethren, Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius and Euthymius. They were popularly known, from their lofty stature, as the ‘Tall Brothers’, and had enjoyed the friendship of Theophilus. Dioscorus had actually been raised to the episcopate, and com- pelled, much against his will, to accept the see of Hermopolis: Eusebius and Euthymius were presbyters of Alexandria. In the persecution which Theophilus did not scruple to raise against the Origenists in q the Nitrian desert, the four ‘Tall Brothers’ suffered ; severely ; and finally they and other monks took refuge | The Monks and Origenism. 1. Vide infra, Chap. XIX. 2. Socrates, vi. 7. Sozomen, VIII. 11, 12. CH. XvilI.] INTRIGUES OF THEOPHILUS. 447 in Constantinople,’ where they were received with kind- ness by Chrysostom, who, however, was careful to do nothing to weaken the authority of Theophilus. As men excommunicated by their own metropolitan, he re- fused to admit them to the Eucharist at Constantinople ; though he had but little doubt that, when he had ex- plained matters to the bishop of Alexandria, the ban would be removed. ; 7 He little knew Theophilus. The pope ec ey ™ of Alexandria was not the man to iste the Epiphanius chance of humbling the upstart see of the Gis eatoni New Rome. In bygone days Theophilus had been opposed to Epiphanius on the Origenistic question; but a bishop of such learning, piety, and simplicity of mind was too useful a tool to be cast aside. Theophilus wrote a courteous letter to Epiphanius, explaining how convinced he was that Origenism was a danger to the Church. The vain old man was flattered at the idea of having won over Theophilus to his own opinion; so, after holding a council in Cyprus to condemn the doctrines of Origen, he started for Constantinople, and, on his arrival, treated the Patriarch as though he were already an excom- municated person.? Though Chrysostom belonged to the school of Antioch, which under his friends Diodore and Theodore favoured the study of Origen, he was not a pronounced Origenist. His aims were practical rather than theo- logical, and the controversy does not appear to have interested him greatly. Directly the four brothers appealed to the Emperor for protection against the pope of Alexandria, they lost Chrysostom’s support. But nothing mollified Theophilus, whose sole object was to ensure the ruin of his rival. Assisted by St. 1. Socrates, vi. 9. Palladius, pp. 51—62. In the Laustac History of Palladius, the ‘Tall Brethren’, especially Ammonius, are mentioned with the greatest respect. Of Origenism, Dom Butler rightly remarks, ‘‘Tt appears to have been a question of ecclesiastical politics quite as much as of doctrine.”” Lausiac History (No. 1), p. 174. 2. Socrates, vI. 12. Sozomen, VIII. 14. Epiphanius was rebuked by the Gothic bishop Theotimus. Sozomen, VIII. 14 and 26, 3. Stephens, of. cz¢., p. 300, on the authority of Palladius. 448 CHRYSOSTOM ACCUSED. [cH. xvulL Epiphanius, and applauded by St. Jerome, he continued his campaign against St. John Chrysostom? Before he left Constantinople, however, Epiphanius found out how thoroughly he had been misled. If he was not reconciled to Chrysostom, he at least had learned that ecclesiastical politics in the capital could not be touched with clean hands.” Theophilus arrived in Constantinople The Syncd ~~ after the departure of Epiphanius, and was received with acclamations by the sailors of the Alexandrian corn-ships. Supported by about forty bishops he held a synod at the Oak, a villa near Constantinople. A strange medley of monstrous and incredible accusations was advanced against Chry- sostom, who declined to appear, and was deposed.® But the support of the people of Constantinople was too strong for the Imperial Court to proceed directly against Chrysostom; and an earthquake occurring at the time terrified the Empress Eudoxia into submission, Chrysostom had already retired from the city, but the populace compelled him to return. The Circensian games were in progress; but the theatre was deserted for the church when the Archbishop addressed the people. Theophilus was driven from the capital; the proceedings of the Synod of the Oak were reversed, and Chrysostom was confirmed in the resumption of his see by an assembly of sixty bishops. Thus the Church as a popular institution had been proved to be a match for the imperial authority in the capital of the East. But John’s enemies were too numerous and too influential to acquiesce in his triumph, nor was Eudoxia a sovereign to be thwarted with impunity. In September, a.p. 403, Chrysostom’s gurysostoms outspoken utterances gave his enemies their opportunity. Eudoxia’s statue, placed on a porphyry column in front of the church of St. I. Stephens, p. 302. 2. The story told by Socrates (vi. 14) of the way Chrysostom and Epiphanius parted may be fairly discredited. For the interview between Epiphanius and Ammonius see Sozomen, VIII. 15. 3. Hefele, Aestory of the Church Councils, § 115. Socr., VI. 15 Soz., VIII. 17, CH. xvul.] = THE SILVER STATUE. 449 Sophia, was dedicated with ceremonies recalling the times in which imperial personages were objects of worship. ‘The noise interrupted the ceremonies of the church, and the Archbishop sternly denounced the proceedings. It was reported to Eudoxia that he had exclaimed, ‘‘ Herodias is once more maddening ; Herodias is once more dancing; once more Herodias demands the head of John on a charger.”! He had been charged at the Synod of the Oak with calling the Empress Jezebel; and this was the culminating insult. The following Christmas, Arcadius declined to enter the cathedral while Chrysostom was there. Confident that the Patriarch had now forfeited the imperial favour, his enemies assembled in the capital, and by the advice of Theophilus, who was too prudent to risk discomfiture by appearing again on the scene, they charged him with violating the 12th Canon of the Council of Antioch (a.p. 341), forbidding a bishop deprived of his see by a synod to seek restoration from the temporal power.? On Easter Eve, Chrysostom was, as was his wont, presiding at the great baptismal service in the church of St. Sophia, which was celebrated at this season. There were three thousand candidates. Soldiers were sent to interrupt the ceremony and to drag the bishop from the church. Wild scenes of disorder followed; and for years the ‘ Joannites’, as the followers of John Chrysostom were called, were subject to a fierce persecution.’ In the following June, Arcadius was induced to sign a decree banishing Chrysostom, and the Patriarch was sent to Cucusus, a lonely village on the borders of Cilicia and Lesser Armenia. The treatment of ‘the aged saint during his exile was such as might be expected of an arbitrary government in the hands of 1. These words are reported by Socrates (vi. 18) and Sozomen (VIII. 20); but the extant sermon containing them is said to be spurious. Hodgkin, Jtaly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 699. Bury, Hestory of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 1., p. 100, 2. Hefele, Coumnczls, § 115. The church of St. Sophia was set on fire on the night of Chrysostom’s departure ; see Bury, of. czt., p. 101. This gave an excuse for the persecution of the Joannites, FF 450 DEATH OF CHRYSOSTOM, (CH. XVIIL — a weak emperor swayed by favourites. He was hurried from place to place; and when at Cucusus his health was seen to improve, he was ordered to be transferred to Pityus on the Euxine. He was compelled to make the long journey on foot, and his guards were led to expect promotion should it prove fatal. At Comana his strength failed; and he died, in the sixtieth year of his age, and the tenth of his episcopate, having spent three and a quarter years in exile. His place at Constantinople was filled by Arsacius, the brother of his predecessor Nectarius, a man eighty years of age. Arsacius died the following year, and was succeeded by Atticus, who lived till 426 a.p.1. Thirty-one years after his death, the body of Chrysostom was brought to Constantinople with great honour, and buried in the church of the Holy Apostles.? The story of St. John Chrysostom State of the gives us an instructive picture of the Coigtanvinapie: Church of Constantinople in the fifth century. It reveals the corruption of the court, the upper classes, and above all of the clergy. It shews the impotence of a righteous patriarch, supported by the people of the city, to contend with the imperial power. For the point at issue in the case of Chrysostom was really whether the Patriarch of Constantinople should be allowed to take the position of a denouncer of wrong-doing wherever found. The see of Constantinople had already enacted been filled by two great saints, St. compared. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. John Chrysostom; and both had been driven away from the New Rome. The failure of Chrysostom to hold his position powerfully affected the destinies 1. Sozomen, VIII. 27. Socrates, Vil. 2,25. It is curious how these two historians differ in their estimate of Atticus. Both agree that he was & most engaging personality and an excellent man of business ; but while Socrates says he was very learned, Sozomen says he was no scholar and a poor preacher, and that he was fully aware of the fact. Atticus liked to read and talk about clever books, but avoided discussing them with people who knew too much: a true proof of wisdom. The charity of Atticus knew no distinction of sect, but only considered the needs of its recipients. 2. Hodgkin, /taly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 701. Bury, History Y the Later Roman Empire, vol. i, p. 104. \ CH. xvil.] © CHRYSOSTOM AND AMBROSE. 451 of the Eastern Church. A weak emperor, urged on by a frivolous wife, had proved that the imperial power was irresistible against a bishop of undoubted sanctity and genius, supported by the love and respect of the inhabitants of the city. Another bishop had to succumb to prove finally that at Constantinople the emperor was the real governor of the Church, and that Caesaro- papalism was destined to prevail, first in the Church of the Eastern Empire, and afterwards in its great offspring, the Church of Russia. Before, however, considering the less honourable downfall of Nestorius, it may be well to compare and contrast the fate of St. Ambrose at Milan with that of St. John Chrysostom at Constantinople. In some respects they were alike; both were preachers of righteousness, both upholders of the authority of the Church against the unjust demands of the State, both having to deal with the fury of an enraged empress, both supported by their people. But Ambrose had not to contend with Chrysostom’s difficulties. He had not to face the malignant jealousy of the see of Alexandria, nor the hostility of a debased clergy; the citizens of Milan were no doubt more faithful supporters than the rabble of Constantinople: and Ambrose, when he came in conflict with Theodosius, had a great and generous man and soldier to deal with; whereas in Arcadius Chrysostom had a feeble creature under the government of court chamberlains and women. Still in character Ambrose shews that superiority which a Western trained to deal with men has over am Oriental brought up in the school and disciplined in the monastery. Though Chrysostom was his equal in purity of heart and integrity of purpose, and his superior as a theologian and scholar, Ambrose knew how to rule, and was possessed of that virility of character which gave the Church in the West a power which Oriental Christianity never possessed. We have now arrived at the period Controversy at which the controversy concerning the ‘Tyo Natures’, Godhead and Manhood of our Lord reached | its acute form in the dispute concerning the orthodoxy of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. FF2 452 THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. [cu. xvii. Before, however, relating the events connected with this, it is necessary to go back to the closing years of the fourth century, when the teaching of Apollinarius raised the point at issue, without however arousing the same violent passions as those which agitated the Church “Ad the fifth century. The difficulty of understanding how our Lord santa: be at once God and Man had presented itself from the first. ‘The Gnostics attempted to solve the question by denying His Humanity. Christ, said they, was only man in appearance (Soxjcet). The Fathers combated this view by insisting on the reality of the flesh of Christ. But the problem was not to be solved so easily. For Christ to be man it-was necessary for Him to do more than to take flesh upon Him, since man may be said to consist of Body and Soul, or of Body, Soul, and Spirit. If the “Word became Flesh” He must have taken all man’s nature upon Himself.2 The Arians, however, declared that if this were the case there would be two Sons, the God and the Man, as two distinct natures could not make one Person.2 They therefore taught that whilst Christ had a body and an animal soul (uy adoryos), the highest part of His nature was supplied by the Logos. At the same time, by teaching that the Logos was not perfectly Divine they maintained that Christ was a half-Divine Nature, capable of falling into sin and therefore capable of change (TpemTos).® 1. Harnack, Azstory of Dogma, vol. IV., p. 139. Origen had admitted the presence of a human soul in our Lord : but long before this Clement of Rome, and later Irenaeus, had spoken of Christ giving ‘* His soul for our souls, and His body for our bodies”. 2. Harnack, Hzstory of Dogma, vol. Iv., p. 147. The consequence was that they said that our Lord had become ‘incarnate, but had not been made man. So Eudoxius affirms in his creed that He was ‘‘the first of creatures, capxkwiévra otk évavOpwrijcavta, otre yap Wuxnv dvOpwrivyv dvethnpev GAA oapé yéyover, va Oia capKds Tots dvOpwmras ws did mapa- meTdopwaros Geds hutvy xpnuation.” 3. Harnack, of, cz¢., vol. IV., p. 27. The question of the freedom of the will of our Lord raised by the Arians was only partly answered by the anathema affixed to the creed of Nicaea. In saying that Christ was not truly God the Arians affirmed that He was capable of moral change and alteration of character. The Creed, in maintaining His Divinity, denied this. ‘‘ It was content’ says Dr. Bethune-Baker ‘‘to repudiate the Arian teaching, which was inconsistent with His being God.” Jntroduction to Chrestian Doctrine, p. 170 (note). CH. XVIIL}] = § THE LOGOS IN CHRIST. 453 This latter proposition Apollinarius of Laodicaea set himself to refute. As a friend of both Athanasius and Basil, and one of the leading opponents of Arianism, his zeal for the full true Divinity and perfect sinlessness of Christ was naturally strong. Bearing ever in mind that the keynote of the Athanasian doctrine of the Incarnation was that “God took flesh for our sakes” (Oe0s capxmOeis 80’ judas), Apollinarius, deeming it impossible that God and man could have coexisted in one Person in their full sense, asserted that the Logos occupied the place of the human rational soul in Christ, taking to Himself a human body and an animal soul. He taught that the Humanity of our Lord, not being moved by anything but the Logos, is incapable of sin, and that the result of the Logos taking the place of the higher Soul in Christ is that in Him there is only one Nature—that of the Logos become Flesh. ‘‘O new creation and wondrous mingling,” he exclaims, “God and Flesh produced one Nature.” (@ kawn KTiots Kai pi€is Oecmrecia, Beds Kal capé wiav atre- TérXecav gvow.) In this way he hoped to silence for ever the Arian heresy that Christ was capable of change.’ Apollinarius was in many respects a x pees theologian. In working out his theory was right. he recognises truths which the Church rightly regards as fundamental. He sees clearly, for example, that if Christ was no more than an inspired man, the effect of His death would not have been the abolition of death for all humanity.? . Apollinarius. 1. Apollinarius was opposed to the Arian notion of a Xpiorés rperrés. According to his view, however, perfect God and perfect man in one being was inconceivable. It seemed to him that a complete ‘nature’ was the same thing as a ‘rerson’. See also the brief but suggestive article in Hastings’ Dict. of Rel. and Ethics by Dr. Adrian Fortescue. Apollinarius lays stress on the statement that the Word became not man but Flesh (cdpt). The latest writer on Apollinarianism is Leitzmann, Afol/inaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, Texte u.U. (Tiibingen, 1904.) Ei dvOpaérw terely cuvnpn Oeds Tédetos, Sto av Foav, els wev dice vids Oeot, els dé @erés. Harnack, of. czt., vol. IV., p. 151. Dorner, 1, p. 999 ff. Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine, p. 242. 2. Apollinarius taught that the acknowledgement of a human £go in Christ would be destructive of the Christian doctrine of redemption, for avOpmmrov Odvaros ob karapyel Tov Odvarov. Our Lord must have assumed humanity as the perfect organ of the Godhead; and consequently the Godhead must have taken the place of the vots in man, 454 PERSON AND SUBSTANCE. ~ [cH. xvi. He appears further to have emphasised the doctrine, afterwards admitted on all hands, that our Lord assumed not the nature of an individual man, but human nature in its entirety. He clearly saw that the purpose of the Incarnation had continued in being from all eternity; and that consequently the historical manifestation of the Logos in Christ is entirely different from the accidental Inspiration of any man. In a word, Apollinarius carried to its logical conclusion the Greek conception of Christi- anity, which was in his day almost confined to the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Logos.? His theory, however, was open to a Wherehe serious objection. In ignoring the com- plete Humanity of Christ, Apollinarius emptied the doctrine of the Incarnation of its real significance. His Christ was not the Christ of the Gospels, the Man who felt sorrow, who hungered, who suffered, who died, but the Logos performing His part in human form. But that which proved the greatest shock to the sensibilities of many prominent Christian teachers of the fifth century was that Apollinarius not only denied the reality of our. Lord’s Humanity, but attributed His suffer- ings to His Divine Nature. ‘“‘God suffered,” ‘God died.”” Against such expressions as these the school of Antioch, under Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, directed its energies.? The Western Church had also its The Western doctrine of the Incarnation, derived from doctrine of the Bg : P Incarnation, lertullian’s memorable treatise Against Praxeas. ‘Tertullian had been unable to see any difficulty in the idea of two substances being united in One Person, nor in the fact that after this union each substance retained its own peculiarities. By this writer substantia was used to represent the Greek gvois: but he appears to have employed the word in its legal rather than in its philosophical sense. A persona is in technical language anyone capable of entering into a contract or legal obligation. As one 1. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 1V., pp. 154, 155+ 2. Bethune-Baker, of. cit., p. 246, CH, XVIII.] THREE VIEWS OF THE NATURES. 455 person can hold several substances (i.e. properties), so Christ is conceived of as One Person possessed of two Natures, the Divine and the Human.! (Page This theory is, however, not above Chief opinions criticism. As Apollinarius pointed out, Incaruation. @ perfect God and a perfect Man can never make a uniform being. There is an apparently irreconcileable contradiction, a gulf between the two Natures which it is hard to bridge over. Nevertheless the Christian conscience and the testimony of the Gospels alike demand that Christ should be perfect God and perfect Man. At this point, therefore, it seems advisable to enumerate the three parties :— 1. The Apollinarian, which recognised in Christ only one Person, z.e., that of the Logos Incarnate. 2. The Antiochene, which laid special stress on the human Ego in Christ and on the main- tenance of the impassibility of the Divine Nature of our Lord as distinct from the Human. | 3. The Western, which saw in Christ two natures, the Divine and the Human, each retaining its own attributes. The complete Humanity of Christ was first asserted at the Council of Alex- andria, A.D. 362, where opinions similar to those of Apollinarius were reprobated.* About a.p. 370 the Cappadocians joined in the attack on these doctrines, and sought, but in vain, to shew that they included the assertion that the flesh of Christ was created in Heaven and existed before He became incarnate.? Neither Gregory of Nazianzus nor his name-sake of Nyssa were very sure of their ground in this controversy; and the latter uses a famous simile, which would in later times Condemnation of Apollinarianism. 1. Harnack, Héstory of Dogma, vol. Iv., pp. 122 (note), 144—146, Tertullian (Adv. Praxeam) says: ‘‘Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed conjunctum in una persona, deum et hominem, Jesum.” 2. Athanasius, Zomus ad Antiochenos, § 7. Harnack, of. cét., vol. IV.» pp. 154 —5 (note). Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp. 245 ff. 456 DECISION OF ROME. (CH. XVIII. have been condemned as Eutychian. ‘The first-fruits of human nature assumed by the almighty Godhead, as one might say—using a simile—like some drop of vinegar commingled with the infinite ocean, are in the Godhead, but not in their own peculiar properties. For if it were so, then it would follow that a duality of Sons might be conceived—if, that is, in the ineffable Godhead of the Son some nature of another kind existing in its own special characteristics were recognised—in such wise that one part was weak or little or corruptible or temporary, and the other powerful and great and incorruptible and eternal.’! In theory the Cappadocians were less opposed to Apollinarius than they were in practice; for though, as Origenists, they clung to the belief in the Free Will of our Lord, they thought of Him in reality only as Divine.? The Roman theologians were more decided. They, as we have seen, had been taught by Tertullian to think of two natures (substantiae) in one Person, and they had little hesitation in condemning Apollinarianism at a synod at Rome held under Damasus in A.D. 377 or 378. This condemnation is reiterated in the seventh anathema of the so-called ‘Tome of Damasus’, belonging pro- bably to a.p. 381: ‘We anathematize those who say that the Word of God had His conversation in human flesh instead of the reasonable and intelligent soul of a man, since the Son Himself is the Word of God, and not in His own body in place of a reasonable and intelli- gent soul; but He has taken upon Him and preserved our soul, that is a reasonable and intelligent soul, (but) without sin.”* A synod held at Antioch in a.p. 379, and the Second General Council also, pronounced it heresy to say with Apollinarius that the Logos took the place of the human soul in Christ; but the question of the two Natures was left open.‘ 1. Ep. adv. Apoll. (Migne, vol. 45, p- 1276), quoted by Bethune- Baker, of. cz¢t., p. 247. 2. Harnack, of. czt., IV., p. 160. 3. Harnack, of. cit., IV., p. 158. Hahn, Symbole, p. 199. Hefele, Councils, § 91. Sozomen, VI. 25. Theodoret, v. 11. The date seems very uncertain. Bethune-Baker, of. cét., p. 214. 4 Hefele, Coumnctls, § 91. Gregory of Nyssa, ad Olymp. CH. XvIL] ANTIOCHIAN CHRISTOLOGY. 457 eee, The school of Antioch under Diodore Antioch, (394) and his more famous pupil, Theodore ; of Mopsuestia (d. 428), now rose to the height of its fame. It had produced John Chrysostom, the great preacher and sufferer for righteousness, and now enjoyed the fame of Theodore, the greatest commentator of antiquity. The general tone of its theologians was scholarly and critical, attaching great importance alike to the grammatical sense of Holy Scripture and to the Humanity and historical character of our Lord. As the Christological controversy turned on the rival views of the Antiochian school as expounded by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and those of St. Cyril as mouthpiece of the Alexandrians, it is desirable that the opinions of these theologians should be set forth in turn. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, in his work on the Incarnation shews how God dwells in man. To say that this is an indwelling of the ‘ Being’ of God is absurd, because the essence of that Being is omnipresence. Equally unreasonable is it to define the indwelling of God as no more than His presence in all His creatures. Those in whom God is pleased to dwell are objects of His choice (evdoxia). Such in a sense is the in- dwelling of the Logos in the Man Jesus. But it is the height of madness to say that this is similar in degree to the presence of God in a believer. The indwelling of the Logos in the Christ began with His conception in the Virgin’s womb. The closeness of this union was continually increasing; and at His Baptism our Lord became united not only with the Logos but with the Holy Ghost. Though Theodore does not shrink from employing the word ‘union’ (€vwos) to express the way in which the Manhood and Godhead are joined together, he prefers to say the natures were held together by conjunction (cuvdadera) .* Theodore of Mopsuestia. 1. Bethune-Baker, of. czt., p. 257. The passage in which these views are expressed is from a lost work Ox the Incarnation. See Dr. Swete’s Vheodore of Mopsuestia on the Minor Epistles of St. Paul, vol. 1., pp. Ixxxi ff. See Dr. Srawley in Hastings’ Dzct. of Religion and Ethics, art. ‘ Antiochene Theology’, and Loofs Westoriana. th, oe 458 SERMON BY ANASTASIUS, _— [cH. xviIL This system laid the utmost stress on the Human Nature of Christ—in other words, on the historical Jesus of the Gospels, as well as on the Freedom of His Will. Theodore held that, as Grace does not transform nature, but only elevates it, so even the Manhood of Christ remained manhood when conjoined with His Divinity... It is not a little significant that in the contemporary Western controversy on Grace and Free Will the Pelagians had the support of the Antiochene divines. Nestorius Such were the opinions promulgated Patriarch, by Theodore, who died in full communion OThe Miearetog? With the Church in a.p. 428, the year in “which the Antiochene presbyter Nestorius was elected Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the expression of the same views by the eloquent preacher, who, like St. John Chrysostom, had been transferred from Antioch to the capital, which caused the outbreak of the almost endless Christological controversy. The title Theotokos (Qeotoxos, she who gave birth to God), which had become increasingly popular with the growing importance of the Virgin Mary in the Christian system, was disputed in a sermon preached by the chaplain of the Patriarch, the presbyter Anastasius. “Let no one” he exclaimed ‘call Mary Theotokos; for Mary was but a woman, and it was impossible that God should be born of a woman.’* ‘This sentence 1. ‘The Antiochians” says Dr. WHarnack ‘‘fully accepted the perfect humanity of Christ. The most important characteristic of this perfect humanity is its freedom. The thought that Christ possessed a free will was the lode-star of their Christology.” Ast. of Doguia, IV., . 165. i 2. Socrates, vit. 32. Harnack, Ast. of Dogma, vol. Iv., p. 168. See further Bethune-Baker, WMestordus and his Teaching, pp. 55 fi.: ‘The term had been in vogue, in some circles at least, for many years. Responsible theological teachers like Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Cyril of Jerusalem, had used it incidentally, while Julian’s taunt ‘You never stop calling Mary Zkheofokos’ would seem to point to a wider popular use.” Theodore of Mopsuestia was apparently the first to take exception to the title. The state of affairs which led Nestorius to protest against the use of the term may be well illustrated from his first letter to Celestine. ‘*There are even some of our own clergymen” he writes ‘‘who openly blaspheme God the Word consubstantial with the Father, representing Him as having received His first origin from the Virgin Mother of Christ.” Quoted by Bethune-Baker, of. cz¢:, p. 16, CH. XVIII] _ POSITION OF CYRIL. 459 was accepted as a challenge by St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. When we reach the facts of the con- eae troversy, the conduct of St. Cyril will exandria. A.D. 412-444, Merit censure; but as a theologian the position of the bishop is less easy to assail. In ability and in insight into the merits of the question he is superior to all who attempted to grapple with it, and the dexterity. with which he avoided pitfalls on either side is really admirable. To refute the Antiochian theology, and at the same time to avoid falling under condemnation of Apollinarius, was a truly surprising eat. Cyril started with one great advantage. Antiquity was on his side. His theology was that of Irenaeus, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians, whilst that of the Antiochian school was open to the charge of innovating.' The need of the Humanity of Christ had not been so strongly perceived in the early Church as that of His Divinity: consequently the Fathers had been content with asserting the reality of the flesh assumed by the Logos. ‘The somewhat crude way in which Apollinarius had explained the relation of the Humanity to the Divinity of the Saviour had startled his contempo- raries, just as the Arian theology had offended men of an earlier generation; but in their hearts the theologians _of the time were agreed that Cyril, in propounding his doctrine, was rather refuting an error than putting forward a theory. This helps to explain the fact that this Father is not always consistent in his language. Cyril sets forward as the view of the Cyril's ere Catholic Church that the Logos took Incarnation. human nature to Himself in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and that therefore the title of Theotokos properly belongs to her. By so doing, he maintained that Godhead and Manhood were 1. ‘*The view adopted by Cyril is undoubtedly the ancient view, that namely of Irenaeus, etc. . . . The interest they had in seeing in Christ the most perfect unity of the divine and the human, and therefore their interest in the reality of our redemption, determined the character of the development of the doctrine.” Harnack, Azs¢. of Dogma, vol. IVs, Pp. 174. 460 “COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM.’ [cu. xviII. - united in the Incarnate Logos in one Person (els é& aupotépwy Xpiotos Kal vios.) Before the Incarnation — there were Two Natures, but being united these can only be distinguished ‘in theory’. The Godhead is not, of course, able to suffer; but, as the Logos was united to the flesh, we may say that His flesh tasted death. Thus we have the doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum (avtidocts iSuoudrov), namely that here on earth our Lord was one Person, but He underwent different experiences in virtue of His two different Natures. What Cyril is most anxious to shew is (a) the unchangeableness of Christ—it was impossible for Him to sin, and (6) the fact that the Incarnation was not the taking of a human personality by the Logos, but the assumption of humanity itself. The Logos took all human nature into Himself, and thus in Christ became the Second Adam. In this way man is redeemed from sin by participating in the flesh which the Saviour has glorified. This flesh, with its life-giving properties received from the Logos, is a means of bestowing Divine life on man in the Eucharistic Sacrament.? Such was the relative position of the two great Schools when the controversy broke out; and it will be clearly seen that, even though the weapons of the warfare of both were carnal in the extreme, and mutual jealousy embittered the Alexandrian prelate and his brother of Constantinople, there were great principles at stake. In many respects the dispute has lasted down to the present time; only now it does not ostensibly take its rise in the use of the term Theotokos, but in the belief in the Virgin Birth.? The great determining factor was the Roman See. Not because its theologians were better equipped for doctrinal questions than those of the East; but on account of its detachment The Roman See. 1. Cyril’s Dogmatic Letter to Nestorius. UWahn, p. 310. Bethune- Baker, Introduction to Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 267. Harnack, AZstory of Dogma, vol. 1V., p. 176 ff. 2. Grace once given is indefectible and cannot be resisted; the number of the elect is known to God, those outside it are justly cast away.* The call being from God, man’s will cannot resist it, nor can it accept salvation unless God so wills. This terrible system—put forward by a man of remark- able piety, full of love and sympathy, whose own con- version, described by himself with matchless skill, was the result of a long mental struggle—found acceptance not only in Africa, the home of uncompromising Christianity, but throughout the West. There is something naturally Augustinian in strong and serious minds, against which 1. Harnack, “7st. of Dogma, vol. V., p. 245, Eng. Tr. Bethune- Baker, Christzan Doctrine, p. 322. 2. Anotein Harnack’s History of Dogma (vol. V., p. 247, Eng. Tr.) says ‘‘The Commonztorium is directed exclusively against St. Augustine.” The second part of the Commonitorium is, it is true, in mutilated form, and there is a silence as to St. Augustine, which together with an allusion to him in Prosper seems to give some plausibility to the view that Vincentius was a Semi-Pelagian. See Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Vincentius’, vol. Iv., e II ° : oe Augustine admits of degrees of misery. Infants who die un- baptized suffer a very mild punishment, ‘ mitissima poena,’ Enchirzdion, 103. ‘‘ Thus the man” (says Harnack, Ast. of Dogma, V. 213) ‘* permits himself to soften the inscrutable righteousness of God which he teaches elsewhere.” Bright, Antz-Pelagian Treatises, p. xiv. 4. But Augustine is unlike Calvin, because he guards against the idea which ascribes arbitrariness to God in His rejection of the wicked, the notion that human nature is totally depraved, and the denial of personal responsibility, ‘‘It is necessary,” says Dr. Cunningham, ‘‘if we are to weigh St. Austin’s teaching fairly, that we should note how at point after point Calvin failed to follow the doctrine of the African Doctor.” St. Austin and his Place in the History of Christian Thought, p. 82. 510 DANGER OF PELAGIANISM, __ [CH. XIX. more rational views of God’s dealings seem to strive in vain. Determinism appears to many the only possible logical view of human life, whether regarded from a scientific or from a religious standpoint. Yet there is something in us constantly rebelling against this con- ception; and few, like Augustine, can face the con- clusions to which it leads. Again and again have Christians risen up in protest; their hearts condemning the view from which a stern logic seems to leave no escape. Yet, strange to say, wherever Christianity has been most zealously adopted Augustinian views have prevailed. Men possessed with the idea that they are predestined instruments in the hands of God have effected more than those who have believed themselves to be free agents; and strange as it may seem, the dark dogmas of Augustinianism have frequently succeeded in raising in the heart a passionate desire for purity of life and conduct. The remarkable influence of Augustine is manifest in the way in which he shaped the subsequent course of Western theology. Whatever opinions we may hold concerning the system of Augustine and the doctrines he taught, there can be no doubt as to the elevation of character and the purity of motive displayed by him throughout the controversy. Though Pelagius had earnestly disclaimed any intention of propounding new dogmas, and declared that the question was an open one on which good men might agree to differ, his theory, as developed by Celestius and formulated by Julian of Eclanum, was in reality a 1. See the discussion of Augustine’s position by Dr. Cunningham, St. Austin and hts Place in the History of Christian Thought, under the heading ‘Commonly Recognised Facts of Human Nature’, pp. 81 ff. There is, however, a very strong tendency at the present time to deny that original sin is transmitted ; but a different sense is given to original sin from that implied by Augustine. Weismann, for instance, maintains that acquired characters are not transmitted, and the inference drawn is ‘that each child has a new beginning; the way is as open to the child of the wicked as to the child of the virtuous”. But Augustine taught that as the very act of generation was sinful all children are born in sin, and are therefore unfit to be members of the kingdom of heaven until they are regenerated. Augustine’s anthropology depends in some degree on a view of the propagation of the human race which is almost revolting to the modern mind. See the Essays by Prof. H. Jones and Mr. Tennant in 7he Child and Religion. CH. XIX.] | ROME TAKEN, 511 dangerous and insidious heresy. In practically denying the operation of Divine Grace and leaving salvation to the will of man, the Pelagians gave God no part in the regeneration of the world. Augustine was as right in opposing a system which would have emptied Christianity of its Divine Element,! as Athanasius had been in resisting Arianism. But in doing so these two Fathers agreed in never allowing the personal element to prejudice their judgment. Augustine did not even want to force his own views on Pelagius; but only required him to acknow- ledge the necessity of a “true internal and assisting grace without admitting it to be irresistible”’.2 Even at the time when he was most provoked by the acquittal of Pelagius, he could speak with consideration of him. In the later controversy with Julian of Eclanum he main- tained a similar tone of courtesy ; though his antagonist pressed him with all the arrogance of youth, taunted him with being imbued with Manichaean opinions, and attacked his favourite doctrine of the perfection of a virgin life. Augustine is the most modern of the Fathers in his command of temper; and it may be added, in his unwillingness to be over-positive in the case of the mysteries of the Faith. (4) The City of God is Augustine’s great- The ; : : P City of Goa,’ St literary production, on account of the circumstances that called it forth, the scope of the work, and its immense influence on posterity. On August 24, a.D. 410 (or 409, for the actual year is uncertain), Alaric, who had twice before led his army to Rome, took the city. Her fall is a most inglorious ending to the long period of immunity from foreign foes which Rome had enjoyed. Since B.c. 390, the year of the destruction of the city by the Gauls, no hostile army had entered her gates. Alaric, however, captured the city without heroic defence or protracted siege. The Porta Salaria was opened by treachery: the Goths entered by 1. Harnack (of. czt., vol. v., p. 189) calls Pelagianism as expounded by Julian of Eclanum a Stoic Christian system. 2. Bright, Anti-Pelagian Treatises, p. ix. ‘‘ Quid enim dici brevius potuit et uerius, quam possibilitatem non peccandi, quantacunge est vel erit in homine, nonnisi Deo debere reputari? Hoc et nos dicimus ; jungamus dexteras.” Aug., De Natura et Gratia, cap. lil. 512 FORBEARANCE OF THE GOTHS. [{cu. xix. night and fired the neighbouring houses, destroying the villa of Sallust as they poured into the defenceless city. The sack lasted three days, and terrible as it must have been, the bloodshed was small in com- parison with subsequent captures of Rome by an enemy. Though Alaric’s soldiers were barbarians, they were Christians; and many examples of their forbearance and reverence for the churches are recorded.’ Jerome’s friend, the pious Marcella, however, died of the treat- ment she had received;? and there were doubtless - many other atrocities committed. But, though we have no record of the sack by an eye-witness, we need not hesitate to affirm that a three days pillage by troops which were sufficiently under control to be with- drawn at the end of that brief period, ‘cannot compare with the horrors which have not unfrequently followed the capture of cities even in comparatively modern times.® i : But the impression made on the produced by the WOrld was tremendous. Men could not FallofRome. believe that Rome had fallen. Jerome on hearing the news can find no language but that of Isaiah to express his horror. ‘“‘ Nocte Moab captus est, nocte cecidit murus eius.’"“ ‘The heathen laid the blame on Christianity, and declared that had Rome remained faithful to her ancient gods she never would have been taken. ‘This led Augustine to commence his great work on the City of God. It would not be possible to do justice The argument +o so important a work in a few lines, of ‘The aes City of Goa’. but a short sketch may serve to indicate the scope of the argument. Augustine shews that other cities had not been saved by their gods, and that the Romans had shewn no mercy to captured I. Orosius, vii. 32. Sozomen, ix. 10, Augustine, De Czv. Dez, bk. 1. Hodgkin, /tuly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 798. 2. Hieron., Ep. cxxvil., Ad Principiam. Hom. in Ezechielem. It may be conjectured that ‘‘ Rome suffered less, externally, from the barbarians in 410 than Paris from the leaders of the Commune in 1871”. Hodgkin, of. czt,, p. 799. 4. Isaiah, xv. 1. ‘*Quia nocte uastata est Ar Moab, conticuit ; quia nocte uastatus est murus Moab, conticuit.” (Vulgate.) CH. XIX.] EXPOSURE OF PAGANISM, 513 cities nor to their temples. But, because they were Christians, the Goths had respected the churches and the fugitives who took refuge in them. They had spared even those pagans, who were now blaming Christianity for having caused the fall of Rome, but who yet had saved their lives by fleeing to the churches.1 What shocked Augustine so much was the way in which the fugitives from Rome, who had taken refuge at Carthage, clamoured for theatres and amusements.? He devotes much space to exposing the horrors of _the Roman stage.’ The plays, be it remembered, were acted in honour of the gods, and he asks what sort of gods they were who persuaded their worshippers to act plays in their honour which no decent man could look at. He speaks of the noble morality of the ancient Romans, and shews how far their descendants had departed from following their example. He asks what the gods had done to improve morals. Are any of the great moral works read in their temples? Plato’s for example?‘ ‘Then he discourses at some length on the character and origin of the Roman religion. Varro is of opinion that there is really but one god, Jupiter; and Augustine asks how it is, if this is the case, that so many deities reign for him by presiding over every act in life.® He next discusses the view of Scaevola, the Pontifex Maximus, that there are three kinds of gods, those of the poet, of the philosopher, and of the statesman.® After indignantly condemning the notion that cities should be deluded in the matter of religion, Augustine goes on to discuss the different conceptions of gods; and declares that it was not the worship of the ancient Romans which had made them great, but their virtues. 1. De Civ. Det, 1. 1. ‘Nam quos uides petulanter et procaciter insultare serius Christi, sunt in eis plurimi, qui illum interitum clademque non euasissent, nisi seruos Christi se esse finxissent.” 0. Dé Cr. Das, I, 23. 2, De Cro, Des, iI. :7. 4. De Civ. Det, i. 7. ‘Quanto melius et honestius in Platonis templo libri eius legerentur, quam in templis daemonum Galli abscin- derentur.” Ge 26 Cet Dei, IV. 9 {0 6. De Cee. Dei; 1. 27 3. VL. §. 514. INFLUENCE OF THE DE CIVITATE, (cu. xix: A large portion of the work is devoted Estimate of the +5 Platonism, especially the doctrine concerning daemons; and though this is decidedly tedious to the modern reader, it is of im- portance to Augustine’s argument, as it was necessary for him to shew wherein the Christian doctrine of angels differed from the Platonic teaching. ‘There follows a long discussion as to the nature of the soul, the origin of evil, the character and the justice of God’s rewards and punishments. When, however, we seek for the main subject of the book, the City of God, it must be owned that it is disappointing to learn so little of Augustine’s opinions as to its nature. But although it has been not altogether untruly said that the conception of the work is greater than the work itself,’ hardly any book has so profoundly influenced Western Christianity. The idea of the Christian Society being the City of God was never absent from the mediaeval mind, and prevailed long after the Reformation. It caused that sharp dis- tinction between sacred and profane which has still so much influence;? yet despite this separation of religious from secular life, which in theory was potent in all Western theology, the conception of the City of God gave a distinctly practical turn to the ideals of the Western Church. As a work of learning, the De Civitate Dei shews how widely read Augustine was, and how varied were his sympathies. In many cases he anticipates modern ideas in such a way as to make his book a necessary study to-day. In some respects, however, his method of thought is singularly alien, not only to modern notions, but to the more liberal theology of the Greek Church. The hard judicial logic of the West characterises his whole treatment of salvation and reprobation. He falls far short of Jerome as a critic, if indeed he can be considered to be a critic 1. Hodgkin, Jtaly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 805. 2. ‘But Augustine gave a much stronger hold than his pre- decessors to the conception that the Church is the Kingdom of God, and by the manner in which in his ‘ Divine Comedy’, the De Czvitate Dez, he contrasted the Church with the State, far more than his own expressed view, he roused the conviction that the empirical Catholic Church . . . was the Kingdom of God, and the independent State that of the devil.” Harnack, Hzst. of Dogma, V., ch. 151, Eng. Tr. CH. X1x.] INVASION OF AFRICA, 515 at all. He accepts the literary traditions of his age as easily as Jerome believes a miraculous story about a monk. The story of the inspired origin of the Septuagint, for example, is related without hesitation, and the prophecies of the Sibyl readily gain credence. On the other hand, the difficulties of the Old Testament, moral, chronological and other, are discussed at length and with considerable acumen.’ Thecontradictions and inconsistencies in the mind of Augustine, like those in the character of Jerome, are illustrations not only of their age, but of mediaeval methods of thought, which these two great men so largely contributed to form. 2S Sia Nothing now remains but to speak Africa. of the Vandal invasion of Africa and the closing scenes of Augustine’s life. A great reason for the intellectual vigour displayed by the Christians of the African provinces in the fourth and fifth centuries had been their isolation. Protected by sea, though the southern frontiers were in constant danger from the Moors, the country and the coast towns remained undisturbed by the hordes of barbarians which were spreading desolation in Gaul, Spain, and Italy. Hitherto the troubles of Africa under Roman rule had been chiefly due either to the turbulence of the Donatists, or to the rebellious spirit of the provincials and their governors.2 Thus when Rome was taken by Alaric it was to Carthage that the fugitive citizens betook them- selves, as to a secure haven of refuge. But during the last days of the life of Augustine the Roman supremacy in Africa was overthrown, and the Catholic Church shared in its downfall. Among Augustine’s patrons and peni- tents none was more distinguished than Boniface, the Comes of Africa. By the year a.p. 422 he had, as was admitted on all sides, gained a reputation alike as a military leader and as a man of high and honourable character. In 412 he is said to have driven Ataulfus, the successor of Alaric, from Massilia, and ten Count Boniface. 1, Je Civ. Dei, xv., cap. ¥9 ff. 2. Like that of Gildo the Moor, a.p. 398, and Heraclian, A.D. 413, both of whom were Counts of Africa, KK 2 516 FALL OF COUNT BONIFACE. [cH. XIX. years later he had distinguished himself against the Vandals in Spain. Either as a usurper or as a lawfully appointed governor, for even this is not clear, he ad- ministered the affairs of the province of Africa with energy and ability, and at the same time became the friend and correspondent of Augustine. From the writings of this Saint we learn that his friend’s official position at this time was that of ‘Count of Africa’ and ‘Count of the Domestics’. Suddenly and unac- countably, at the time of his first wife’s death, Boniface’s character underwent a complete change. He had been anxious to embrace a religious life, or at any rate to take a vow of continence. But he was called away from Africa, and during his absence he married an Arian wife, named Pelagia. From that time he seems to have steadily degenerated. His morals became daily more irregular, and his indolence proved a source of danger to the province, as no efforts were made to protect the frontier from the Moors. Augustine indignantly remonstrated with Count Boniface for his apostasy and also for his scandalous neglect of duty ;1 and, as one story goes, the Count was destined to be deluded into the commission of an even more serious crime. | The Western Empire was under the nominal government of the youthful Valentinian III. and of his mother, Galla Placidia, the daughter of Theodosius I. The real rulers, however, were the two powerful generals, Boniface and his rival Aetius. The latter persuaded Placidia that Boniface was a traitor, and an expedition was sent to drive him out of Africa. To protect himself Boniface called in the assistance of Gaiseric and his Vandals.” The Vandal invasion of Africa St. Berruscttiat proved a terrible blow to the Church, owing to the barbarians being Arians and bitterly hostile to Catholic Christianity. In 1. Augustine, Zf. CCxx. 2. Freeman (Western Europe in the Fifth Century, Appendix I.) denies the truth of the story of Boniface and his rivalry with Aetius, as resting solely on the evidence of Procopius (Be//. Vand. 1. 3), who went to Africa with Belisarius in A.D. 533. CH. XIX.] VANDAL PERSECUTION. 517 A.D. 428 Gaiseric with some 80,000 males, including old men and children, crossed from Spain to Africa and found the whole country an easy prey. By a.p. 430 only three towns were able to offer resistance, Hippo, Cirta, and Carthage. Augustine and the wretched Boniface, the cause of all this ruin, were shut up in Hippo, which stood a siege of fourteen months, during which Augustine died on August 28, a.p. 430, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. The provinces of Africa were ceded to the Vandals in a.p. 435, only Carthage remaining in Roman hands; and that city was taken by Gaiseric in A.D. 439. ene The Vandal rule in Africa lasted for tyranny, 2 little more than a century, including the fifty years reign of Gaiseric. With the history of this period it is not necessary for us to deal, save in so far as it affects the Church. It is, however, in one respect of special interest as being a striking example of the oppression of Catholic provincials by Arian conquerors. The Vandals, proud of their valour and of the superior purity of their lives, treated the orthodox as their inferiors alike in morals and theology. The churches were confiscated, the bishops driven from their sees; in some instances persecution was carried to the last extremity, and men were martyred for refusing to deny the faith of the Church. But, speaking generally, there was not more severity shewn to the Catholic religion than might have been expected to be displayed by victorious settlers towards the faith of a subject people! But for the men who had seen the Church triumph under Augustine over all the powerful sects in Africa, to have to accept bare toleration at the hands of Arian barbarians was indeed a bitter trial, and the oppressed Catholics have caused the name of Vandal for all time to be associated with wanton destruction. From the fallen Church of Africa we turn to the rising Roman community, which increased steadily in power and influence during the first half of the fifth century. 1. L. R. Holme, Zhe Extinction of the Christian: Churches tn North Africa. The Church of Rome. 518 THE ROMAN CHURCH, [cH. XIX, We have shewn elsewhere how under Damasus the Roman Church, with her apostolic traditions and her wealth of martyrs, had begun to attract Christians from all parts of the world; and under his successors her importance, despite the many calamities of the city, never ceased to grow, as the prestige of the former mistress of the world became more and more centred in the person of her bishop. Three things contributed to this rapid increase of the Apostolic See: (1) its un- swerving orthodoxy and moral superiority to the Eastern patriarchates; (2) the ability of two at least of the pontiffs, Innocent and Leo; (3) the reverence with which men looked to Rome as the repository of the glorious traditions of the past. The withdrawal, moreover, of the seat of government from Rome enhanced the im- portance of the Church; for although the Sees of the administrative capitals of Italy, like Milan and Ravenna, occasionally claimed to be independent and even superior to Rome, these annoyances were more than compensated by the absence of any rival to the Pope in the city itself. Even the two sacks of Rome, by Alaric in a.p. 410 and by Gaiseric in A.D. 455, augmented the influence of the Church by removing the great families, whose secular magnificence had previously obscured the splendour of the hierarchy. Amid the disasters of the age the sole protection of the oppressed, whom the Emperor and his armies were powerless to assist, was found to be the commanding influence of the Christian Church. Outside Italy, moreover, there was a growing tendency to look to Rome for guidance and support; and as a rule the Roman bishops took the side of persecuted orthodoxy and virtue. It was not forgotten that Athanasius had found refuge from his enemies at Rome in the days of Julius; and that John Chrysostom had received the unwavering support of Innocent I., who withdrew from communion with the three great patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, till justice had been done to the memory of that much injured bishop. The preeminence of the Roman See in the fifth century is attributable to many causes, not the least of which was the high character which the Church of the Imperial City deservedly bore. a as CH. XIX.) THE FIRST ROMAN CHURCHES, 519 ar SH Church of Rome had been for mipstrabive nearly three. centuries a’ Greek rather tioned) than a Latin community; but after the reign of Constantine the Latin element preponderated, and early in the fifth century the very knowledge of Greek had begun to disappear from among the clergy. It had been long characteristic of Rome that she had been able to attract rather than to produce great intellects; and the sterility of her Church in this respect is in marked contrast to the productiveness of those of Alexandria, Carthage, and Antioch. But Rome amply atoned for any lack of intellectuality by her singular power of fostering administrative ability. The calm dignity, the capacity for affairs, the tranquil order of government, which had characterised the State of Rome in its greatest days, was now manifested in the. Church. Her ceremonies were distinguished by their simplicity and restraint; her creed was the briefest and least theological of all confessions of faith. The sermons which have come down to us are not instinct with the eloquence and rhetoric of the Gregorys or of Chrysostom, but have the terse precision of legal decrees. The impression which a study of the Roman Church in the fifth century leaves, is one of solidity and strength. She at least compelled respect from other Churches, and seemed already conscious of her destiny to become the spiritual judge of Western Europe. : Tradition says that the earliest Churches in church in Rome, that of St. Pudentiana, was founded as early as a.p. 143 by PiusI.; and the church of St. Cecilia is attributed, but with little authority, to Callixtus I. (a.p. 21g—223). The basilicas of St. Alexius and St. Prisca are also supposed to be earlier than the conversion of Constantine.’ Constantine erected the church of the Lateran, near the palace which he had bestowed on Pope Sylvester, and dedicated it to the Saviour, nor was it till the sixth century that it received the name of St. John the Baptist. It was popularly known as the church of Constantine. 1. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 1., pp. 82 ff. See also Barnes, St. Peder in Rome. 520 INCREASE OF PAPAL AUTHORITY. [CH, atx The origin of St. Peter’s is more obscure; but the great church on the Vatican is generally ascribed to Constantine, who is also credited with having built another famous church outside the walls of Rome, that of St. Paul on the Ostian Way, a mile from the city. This was rebuilt by the praefect Sallust at the command of Theodosius and his sons. The other churches of the fourth century were those of St. Laurence, St. Agnes, St. Crux in Hierusalem, SS. Petrus and Marcellinus, St. Clement, and the two subsequently dedicated to the Virgin, Sta. Maria in Trastevere and Sta. Maria Maggiore." 3 It will be seen that, considering the vast size of Rome, there were but few churches in existence at the beginning of the fifth century, and that it is impossible to measure the influence of Christianity there by the visible tokens of its existence. ‘The most famous churches had been built either outside the walls or far from the heart of the city. They were, as it were, forts erected by the new Faith preliminary to the complete capture of the capital of the world. be How steadily the Roman Church con- ofthe Popes, SOlidated her authority from the days of Damasus to the death of Leo is shewn by the history of the successive pontiffs. And, as is often the case in human affairs, the policy of the Popes appears to have been guided by the irresistible force of circumstances. : ane Siricius, the successor of Damasus, AD 384-898, Presided over the Roman Church from A.D. 384 to 398, and his correspondence with Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain, throws an unexpected light on the relations of the Roman See with the Peninsula. Himerius had sent to Damasus questions on fourteen doubtful points: but Damasus had died, and it fell to Siricius to answer the letter. The language of the Pope shews that he is fully aware of the supremacy of his See. ‘‘ We bear” says Siricius “the burthen of all who are heavy laden; nay rather the blessed Apostle Peter bears them in us, who, as we trust, in all things protects and guards us, the heirs I. Gregorovius, of. czt.. pp. 88 ff. CH, XIX.] THE FIRST DECRETAL, 521: of his administration.” The bishop of Tarragona is commanded to publish the papal decrees in the five provinces of Spain—Tarraconensis, Carthaginensis, Baetica, Lusitania and Gallicia. The most interesting part of the letter is the fifth Canon, in which the marriage of the clergy after attaining the rank of deacon and upwards, as well as cohabitation with their wives if already married, is sternly interdicted.*. The letter is really a decretal, and it is the first papal communica- tion of this kind extant. It is maintained by some that Siricius held a council at Rome and promulgated another decretal letter to the Churches of Africa, which is found among the decrees of a council held at Telepte in Africa; but its genuineness is disputed.’ Anastasius succeeded Siricius; but his Anastasius and pontificate (A.D. 398402) was both short nnocent I. AD, 398—4i7, and uneventful. The longer and more important primacy of Innocent I. (a.p. 402—417) is an epoch in papal history full of stirring events, and providing opportunities of which Innocent did not fail to take advantage. Innocent intervened with authority in the ecclesiastical affairs of Gaul, Spain, Illyricum and Africa, and took an honourable part in the disputes which distracted the Eastern Church. The examples of the intervention of Innocent in the affairs of other Churches shew the position which the See of Rome held in the estimation of the Christians of the fifth century. In every case the extant letters of Innocent were in response to questions concerning the law and practice of the Church. As in the days of Irenaeus, Rome was the repository of tradition; but whereas in the second century men looked to her for decision as to the norm of the faith of the Church, in the fifth century she seems to have been more usually consulted in matters of law. In the decretals of Siricius and Innocent two points are uniformly insisted on—the obligation of the higher clergy to abstain from their wives, and the necessity of men passing through the 1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Siricius’, vol. 1V., pe 697. 2. Hefele, Councils, § 105. / 622 POPE INNOCENT DEMONSTRATES. [cu, xix. lower grades of the ministry before being admitted to the superior orders. Ta : In the matter of St. John Chrysostom, and Glrysostom, LoMocent deserves every commendation for having risen superior to the traditions of his See, the prejudices of his age, and the natural jealousy of Rome at the growing prestige of her rival. Since the days of Athanasius, the Popes had been the allies and supporters of Alexandria, and the opponents of the faction of the Church of Antioch to which Chrysostom, the friend of Flavian, had belonged.’ Origenism was not in favour at Rome; and Theophilus, supported by St. Epiphanius, the bishop most reverenced for orthodoxy throughout the Church, and by the great Western theologian St. Jerome, had disguised his enmity against Chrysostom under the specious pretext of zeal for the Faith. Furthermore, the humiliation of Chrysostom was in reality designed to weaken the reputation of the Church of New Rome, which had gained so much from the piety and genius of her eloquent patriarch. Innocent therefore had every worldly inducement to shew hostility to Chrysostom and to support Theophilus. From the first, however, the Pope stood by Chrysostom, writing letters of consolation to him and to the clergy of Constantinople, annulling the decrees of the Synod of ‘the Oak’, and doing his utmost to induce the emperor Honorius to interfere on behalf of the per- secuted bishop. Even after Chrysostom’s death Innocent did not let the matter drop; but refused to hold com- munion with the Churches of the East till justice had been done? Antioch was the first of the patriarchates to be reconciled to Rome, on the name of Chrysostom being placed on the diptychs in a.p. 413 ; Constantinopfe followed soon afterwards; but Alexandria remained out of communion with Innocent till a.p. 417, thirteen years after the deposition of Chrysostom. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Roman See was regarded in the East with reverence as the champion of those who were unjustly oppressed. 1. Vide supra, pp. 447—8. 2. Stephens, Zzfe of Chrysostom, ch. xX. CH. XIXx.] ETRUSCAN SOOTHSAYERS. 523 PET nose The feeble emperor, Honorius, retired t6 Beme. to Ravenna in a.p. 404, leaving the task of government to base and unworthy favourites, who were powerless to prevent the advance of Alaric and his Goths; and soon the intrigues which ended with the death of the valiant Stilicho, the one general who could have opposed the invader, left the way to Rome open to the Gothic chief. Into the devious political intrigues of the day it is unnecessary to enter. Suffice it to say that Stilicho was put to death in A.D. 408, and in the same year Alaric laid siege to ‘Rome. There were no warlike operations, there was no defence. Alaric simply invested the city and let hunger do its work. The Romans sent an embassy to the barbarian with bold words; to which Alaric replied “Thick grass is easier mown than thin’; and when asked what would be left if they acceded to his terms, replied “Your lives”. In their despair the Romans turned to the gods of their fathers; and the heathen Zosimus tells a strange story, which the Christian historian, Sozomen, partly confirms. He relates that the Etruscan soothsayers were consulted, and that sacri- fices were offered at Narni, which were believed to have propitiated the neglected gods and to have terrified the barbarians. Pompeianus, the praefect of the city, though a professing Christian, half persuaded by this alleged deliverance, consulted the Pope whether it would not be advisable to repeat the experiment in Rome. Innocent, as is reported, gave leave to the Etruscans to practise their rites in private. But they declared that to be efficacious the ceremonies must be performed in public, so nothing was done. Soon afterwards the Romans agreed to Alaric’s terms, and the Goths retired. The story rests on the prejudiced testimony of a heathen historian, but, even if incredible, it illustrates the feelings of the age? 1. See Hodgkin, Ztaly and her Invaders, vol. 145 p. 771. The Gothic (sazva/a) may mean ‘life’ or ‘soul’. 2. Zosimus, V. 41. Sozomen, 1x. 6. The former says that Innocent preferred the safety of Rome to his own religion. 06 de Tijs Tohews wrnpiav éumpoobev Tis olkeias moinodpuevos Sdgns AdOpa epijxev avrois woreiv darep tcagw. Paganism was exceedingly strong at this time, and the code is full 524 MODERATION OF THE BARBARIANS. [cH. x1x. The second siege of Rome by Alaric witnessed another revival of paganism in the setting up of a rival to Honorius in the person of an Arian Greek named Attalus, who was supposed to be in favour of restoring the sacrifices. He reigned some ten months as the ally of Alaric, whom he raised to the rank of Magister utviusque militiae; but finally Alaric deposed this puppet emperor and again made overtures to Honorius. As these proved fruitless he commenced the third siege of Rome, which ended in the capture of the city by the barbarians, August 24, 410. freeones The details of the Fall of Rome, one ’ of the most dramatic events in history, are veiled in obscurity; since-no record of the event from an eye-witness has come down to us. But what is remarkable is that the Christian Fathers dwell less on the horrors of the sack than on the singular for- bearance of the barbarians. Alaric’s Goths were Arians; but it is generally conceded that they shewed the utmost reverence towards the churches and the sacred treasures of the Christians. Cases are recorded of the piety and purity of Christian women winning the respect of their captors. Augustine and Orosius both contrast the mercy shewn by the barbarians with the ferocity of the ancient Romans when they captured the cities of their enemies.’ But the strongest testimony to the moderation of Alaric is the shortness of the time allowed for pillage. In three, or at most six, days he had reassembled his forces and withdrawn them from the city. When we re- member the horrors of the sack of Rome by Catholic Spaniards and Lutheran Germans in 1527,’ the irre- verence, the brutality, and the complete failure of military discipline of the troops of Bourbon and Freunds- berg, we cannot but be amazed at the good behaviour of the Gothic heretics and barbarians who sacked Rome in A.D. 410. of laws forbidding Christians to relapse into the old religion. Dill, Roman Society, p. 33. This explains the minuteness of detail with which Augustine in the De Civitate Dei denounces the ancient superstitions. He was contending with a living faith, 1. ‘Truculentissimas et saeuissimas mentes ille (Deus) terruit, ille fraenauit, ille mirabiliter temperauit.” De Civ. Dez, 1. 7. 2. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1v., ch. xvi. CH. XIX.] - ROME AND PELAGIUS. §25 ee The Pelagian controversy which began sm. during the pontificate of Innocent, came under the cognisance of the Roman See in his days and in those of his successors, Zosimus (a.D. 417—418), and Boniface (418—422). The theological points of this dispute have already been noticed; and it will be sufficient to state the chief synodical acts relating to Pelagius and his friend Celestius. A council at Carthage held in a.p. 411 or 412 had condemned the opinions of Celestius; but he and Pelagius reopened the question in the East. The case was heard by John of Jerusalem at Bethlehem in 415, and by a synod at Lydda (Diospolis). As Pelagius was acquitted, Augustine wrote to Innocent explaining that the Palestinian bishops had been ill informed: and the sentence of the Church of Africa was renewed at a provincial council at Milevis (A.D. 416), at which Augustine was present. A synodal letter, together with an appeal by five bishops including Augustine, was sent to Innocent, who agreed to condemn the doctrines of Pelagius.! Celestius and Pelagius, however, sent statements of their faith to Innocent just before his death; and Celestius arrived in Rome to lay the case before the new pontiff, Zosimus. On their consenting to condemn all that his predecessor had pronounced to be heretical the Pope completely acquitted both of them.? The Africans were not however to be baulked ; and in a.p. 418 a Great Synod held at Carthage condemned Pelagianism. An edict against the heresy was issued by Honorius, and the Pope had no alternative but to confirm the decree of the African council, which he did in his Epistola Tvactatoria. ‘The success of the Roman See in previous disputes concerning doctrine seems to aggravate her failure in the matter of Pelagianism.? 1. Of this correspondence Harnack says, ** The Pope had, perhaps, never yet received petitions from a North African synod which laid such _ gtress on the importance of the Roman Chair. Innocent sought to forge the iron while it was hot.” ist. Dogma, vol. v., p. 182, Eng. Transl. Innocent, 4/4. XXX.—XXXIII, Augustine, ff. CLXXXI.—CLXXXIV. 2. Celestius used most submissive language to Zosimus, and Pelagius’ confession of faith was drawn up with great skill. Hahn, Syméole, § 209. Harnack, of. czt., p. 185. 3. Anattempt has been made to shew that Zosimus’ change of front was independent of the Edict. Harnack, of. cit., p. 186. Dr. Bright 526 MISTAKES OF ZOSIMUS. [CH. XIX. Short as was the rule of Zosimus, Pontificateof it was important for other reasons than are “ti7_-418, the case of Pelagius. Two other affairs, connected the one with Gaul, the other with Africa, occupied this Pope’s attention. The See of Arles, at this time occupied by Patroclus, laid claim to the primacy of Gaul ; but the neighbouring metropolitans of Vienne, Narbonne and Marseilles resisted its pretensions, and succeeded in getting them rejected by a synod held at Turin. Proculus, Bishop of Marsailler, as metropolitan of Narbonensis secunda, asserted his independence by consecrating Lazarus, a friend of Heros, to the see of Aquae Sextiae (Aix). Heros had been put into the primatial throne of Arles by the usurper Constantine; but had been thrust out to make room for Patroclus. Zosimus, a strong supporter of Patroclus, confirmed his authority over the whole of Gaul, and gave him special privileges in proof of his good will. Heros and Lazarus therefore were exiles in Palestine at the time of Pelagius’ visit, and exerted themselves as his principal accusers. It is therefore hardly to be wondered at that Zosimus regarded the charges of heresy made at Rome against Pelagius as coming from a somewhat tainted source. The hasty action of the Pope in pronouncing Pelagius innocent may possibly be imputed to personal prejudice against his mie accusers. eouet Temin ste osimus was also involved in a Core Ot ees dispute with the prelates of Africa on a question of discipline. Apiarius, a presbyter of Sicca in Mauretania, had been excommunicated by his bishop for grave moral offences. He appealed to Rome, and Zosimus pronounced his acquittal, ordering him to be restored to his office. But the African episcopate resented this attempt at interference in the discipline of their Church; and at their General Council at Carthage (Anti-Pelagian Treatises of St. Augustine, p. xl.) says, ** This mistake on the part of Zosimus has no direct bearing on the claim of Papal infallibility, for he erred on the question of fact, whether certain persons did or did not hold the faith which he himself held ; but still, to use exact and measured language, his was a very hasty judgment in a matter touching the very centre of the Faith.” CH, XIX. ] A DISPUTED ELECTION. 527 on May 1st, 418, a canon was passed forbidding “presbyters, deacons and inferior clerics to appeal against their bishops to a court ‘beyond the sea’.” Zosimus next sent a commission to Carthage, consisting of a bishop and two presbyters, with a written in- struction (commonitovium). A small synod of the neighbouring bishops was summoned by Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, to discuss the question of appeals to Rome. The Pope based the right to hear them on a canon which he believed to be Nicene, but which the African bishops denied to be among the acts of the Council. Requests were made for copies of the Nicene canons to St. Cyril at Alexandria and to Atticus at Constantinople. As a matter of fact, Zosimus had mistaken the fifth canon of Sardica (a.p. 343) for a decree of Nicaea. Apiarius was however provisionally reinstated as a presbyter; but in a.p. 426 a further investigation was held; and Apiarius made confession that he was guilty of the crimes for which he had been originally deposed.’ The case raised important points in Canon law; and it is the misfortune of Zosimus that during a two years pontificate he proved himself in the wrong in a point of doctrine and also in a matter of discipline, and provided a case both against the infallibility and the authority of the Roman See. | The death of Zosimus, in December Boniface and 418, was followed by a disputed election. One faction of the clergy and people elected Eulalius, Archdeacon of Rome; whilst the majority, as was said, chose the presbyter Boniface. The praefect of the city, Aurelius Anicius Symmachus, re- ported to Honorius in favour of Eulalius, and the Em- peror ordered him to be installed as Pope. The people, however, rose in favour of Boniface, who occupied the church of St. Paul outside the walls; whilst his rival held the church and palace of Lateran. Scenes of anarchy and bloodshed, such as had characterised the schism between Damasus and Ursicinus, followed: and ultimately the case was referred to a council summoned by command of Honorius. The matter, however, was 1. Hefele, Councils, §§ 120, 122, Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. I., p. 240. 528 ROME AND THE EAST. _ [cu. xix. decided, not by the council, but by the conduct of Eulalius, who, in defiance of the imperial commands, celebrated Easter at Rome. Boniface accordingly became Pope; but died, after a brief pontificate, in A.D. 422. The whole incident exemplifies the authority which the Emperor already exercised in confirming the choice of the Roman clergy and people, and also the firm determination of the Romans, who accepted the appointment of all civil magistrates without demur, not to have a bishop thrust upon them against their will. Hitherto we have seen the Roman The Roman See bishops chiefly in relation to the Churches controversies. Of Gaul and Africa and Spain. ‘The interest in Eastern affairs was chiefly centred in Illyricum, over which they claimed juris- diction, delegating their authority to the bishop of Thessalonica. Now, however, we have to observe their action in relation to the controversies which were agitating the Churches of the East. The Nestorian and Eutychian disputes demonstrated the power and wisdom of the Roman Church in the fifth century. Her position made her the arbiter between the rival factions in the distracted Churches of Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Constantinople. Situated far from the scene of their rivalries, the Roman pontiffs could the better decide between heated disputants, because their own flock was undisturbed by the questions at issue. In the great theological controversies the decision of a General Council was in the East a signal for a fresh outburst of embittered dispute, whilst in the West all interest in the question subsided when once it had been settled by authority. fe as Thus in the case of Nestorius, (A.D. 422--439), Celestine I. (a.p. 422—432) and Sixtus IIL. Sixtus Ill. | (A.D. 432—440) pursued a consistent policy (t D. aoe ~ 240). of hostility to the Patriarch in his dispute Churches, With St. Cyril; and Sixtus III. marked the triumph of orthodoxy over the error of Nestorius by the erection and decoration of perhaps the first church in Rome dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. Sixtus restored the basilica of Liberius, and dedicated it CH. xIX.) COSTLY CHURCHES, 529 to the mother of God.’ The church, now known as Sta. Maria Maggiore, still preserves the ancient mosaics— the only ones in Rome which illustrate the development of Christianity in a series of Biblical histories. Sixtus endowed his church with lavish gifts, following the growing custom of making the Christian sanctuaries rival their pagan predecessors in the costliness of their adornment. In vain had Jerome protested, in his letter to Nepotianus on his forsaking the military for the clerical profession, against men building churches of marble with gilded ceilings and jewelled altars on the plea that the temple at Jerusalem was thus adorned, forgetting that “ our Lord by His poverty has consecrated the poverty of His House’”’.2 The Liber Pontificalis extols each succeeding Pope for the zeal shewn by him ° in giving costly presents to the churches of Rome. The most remarkable circumstance Personal | connected with the Roman See in the obscurity of : : ’ ; Popes. period under review is the rapid growth of its influence despite the comparative obscurity of the individuals who filled it. Among the early Popes there is hardly a single commanding personality. The influence of the bishops of Rome depended less on the merits or ability of the pontiff than on traditions of his throne. The very fact that, save Clement, no successor of St. Peter had taken his place among the Fathers of the Church, that Rome could not boast of an Athanasius, a Chrysostom, or a Cyril, enhanced rather than detracted from the dignity of the See; since, whereas all these eminent men had been engaged in the arena of controversy, the Popes had occupied’ the more secure position of umpires. . At last, however, in Leo (a.p. 440—461) one of the greatest men of his age presided over the Church of Rome. Leo may be justly termed the first ko aot Pope who combined the qualities of a politician with those of a bishop. At the time of his election he was absent on a mission to reconcile Aetius, the great Western general, to a rival 1. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1., ch. V., § 2. 2. £p. LIl., § 10. LL 530 ELECTION OF St. LEO, | [cH. xIx, named Albinus; and throughout his pontificate he appears from time to time as the representative of the Roman people. It was not to the generals and council- lors of Galla Placidia that the Romans turned in their distress, but to their bishop. When Attila invaded Italy in A.D. 451, when Gaiseric was about to pillage Rome in A.D. 455, all men looked to Leo for counsel and assistance. A really strong character seldom shrinks from responsibility, especially when prepared by experience to exercise it. Leo, a Roman by upbringing if not by birth, was possibly the acolyte employed in carrying the correspondence of Pope Zosimus to Africa, in which case he must have had personal communication with St. Augustine. Under Celestine he was raised to the dignity of Archdeacon of Rome, a position of immense influence; and in the time of Sixtus III. we find him taking an active part against Julian, bishop of Eclanum, who combined fervent piety and unsparing liberality with a sympathy for Pelagianism. Versed as he was in the business of the great Roman Church, and imbued with its spirit of government, Leo had no hesitation in assuming its leadership; if with a due appreciation of the responsibility he was undertaking, yet without reluctance. He recognises a proof of Divine goodness in the unanimity shewn by the Romans in electing him: The opening words of his sermon on the day of his con- secration are words of praise. “It is” he says “a sign not of a modest, but of an ungrateful mind, to keep silence on the kindnesses of God ; and it is very meet to begin our duty as consecrated pontiff with the sacrifices of the Lord’s praise; because in our humility the Lord has been mindful of us.” ? | Leo betrays no sign of doubt regarding the assured position of the bishop of Rome. He is unquestionably the successor of St. Peter, the vicegerent of Christ. As Petex is above all the Apostles, so the Roman pontiff Early life. 1. Milman, Aestory of Latin Christianity, vol. 1., p. 164. ** His long and weary life was prolonged thirty years after his exile. . . . The last act of the proscribed heretic was to sacrifice all he had to relieve the poor in a grievous famine.” 2 Leo Magn., Hom. 1. ma a CH. XIX.) THE POPE St. PETER’S SUCCESSOR. 531 is set over all bishops. His right of superiority is in €very Case uncompromisingly asserted. Dioscorus of Alexandria is reminded gee aetersa, at his accession to the bishopric that he authority. presides over the Church of St. Mark, the follower of St. Peter! Flavian of Con- stantinople is blamed for not at once communicating the sentence against Eutyches to Rome. Anatolius, St.. Flavian’s successor, is constantly warned not to presume to an equality with the Pope, and is asked to send a confession of his faith, that Leo may judge whether or no he ought to be acknowledged by the Apostolic See. The bishops of Mauretania Caesariensis in Africa are given precise directions as to how they are to act in regard to ordinations, creation of sees, treat- ment of individuals, and appeals to Rome.‘ The Siciliar bishops are warned against alienating Church property, and instructed as to the proper times for administering the sacrament of baptism.® The Spaniards are com- manded to be more vigilant, and are directed how Priscillianism can best be refuted.6 Illyricum is re- garded as peculiarly under the dominion of the Pope; and Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, is made his vicar, with authority over all the bishops of the province.’ When, however, Anastasius used force to summon Atticus, bishop of Old Epirus, to Thessalonica, he is sternly taken to task by Leo for his arbitrary and unjust conduct. Even if Atticus had committed a serious crime, Leo declares that the metropolitan should not have acted until he had taken advice from the Holy See.® Indeed it is impossible in reading Leo’s correspondence not to notice that anyone who appeals to him against his ecclesiastical superiors is sure of a patient hearing. Even Eutyches, who was the first to Eutyches a8 82 report to Rome his condemnation at Con- app stantinople by bishop Flavian, met witha certain sympathy from Leo. Considering how thoroughly S.. £f, Vil. 24 0. XXII 3. Lp. LXIX., ad Theodosium Augustum. Ep. UXXX., ad Anatolium the Ep, KAY, b. 2p KVL 6. Ep. Xv. q. Ep. Vi. Bio ite BN LL 2 532 St. HILARY OF ARLES. _ [cH xIx. the Pope was opposed to the heresy, it is surprising how much tenderness for the person of the heresiarch he displays. Eutyches is described by Leo as foolish, un- instructed, ignorant, but there is no bitterness manifested against him as a man; and even when Leo is most strenuous in condemnation of his doctrine, he never forgets to suggest that, if Eutyches will only repent, -he is to be pardoned.* { But it is very different when the The pmeey authority of the Holy See is disputed. "Leo tells the bishops of Gaul that as our Lord has given to St. Peter the principal charge as chief of the Apostles, He desires that all His gifts should flow to the rest of the body from him as from the head. No one therefore who secedes from Peter’s solid rock has part or lot in the Divine mystery. It is consequently horrible to learn that the occupant of the chief see of Gaul has presumed to subject the churches of that country to his authority, in order that he himself might not be subject to the blessed Peter. When called in question for his arbitrary actions, this metropolitan had given vent to utterances such as “no layman should make and no priest listen to”. In another case the same offender, in the exercise of metropolitan rights granted to his predecessors by one Pope but withdrawn by his successor, had by his harshness nearly caused the death of a bishop whom he had supplanted, by consecrating another to administer his see. ‘The activity displayed in visiting his*province seems to Leo to savour of an ambition to emulate a courier rather than to act like a priest. His violence is severely reprehended, and the Pope warns the bishops of Gaul not to be misled by the customary untruthfulness of their would-be metropolitan. Finally, Leo orders that in future the primacy of Gaul should be entrusted to a certain Leontius, who seems to have had no qualification except that of seniority. It is not a little surprising to learn that this arbitrary, unjust, arrogant and untruthful ecclesiastic was none other than St. _X. Zp. xxviti. (The Tome). See also Leo’s correspondence with Julian, bishop of Cos, Zp. xxxIv. 2. £p. VIII., cap. 3 3. fp. VIII, cap. 5. CH. XIX,] LEO AND IMPERIAL LAWS. 533 Hilary of Arles, one of the brightest lights of the Gallican Church. ‘He was a man”, says Bishop Gore, and his encomium is not excessive, “of pure and lowly holiness, a zealous evangelist, simple and ascetic in his life; loving order and discipline, but hating op- pression and fearless in rebuking it..... Altogether, the fifth century does not present a nobler and more beautiful character.”! Hilary had crossed the Alps to plead his cause at Rome against a Gallican bishop named Celidonius, who, after having been deposed, had been reinstated by the Pope; but Leo refused to re-open the case, and actually ordered Hilary to be closely guarded to prevent his escape from Rome. However, he evaded the vigilance of his gaolers, and returned to Arles, saving himself, as Leo ungenerously remarks, “by a disgraceful flight”’. The conduct of Leo on this occasion is in keeping with the subsequent action of his successors. To the heretic, regarded as an individual, the most orthodox Pope could shew a certain generosity; but towards those who contested their authority they were im- placable.? In the case of Eutyches, Leo could behave as a Christian pastor, condemning the error of the heretic, yet doing all in his power to bring him to repentance. But to St. Hilary, who dared to question the authority of Rome, no consideration could be shewn. “He has” says Leo “on more than one occasion brought upon himself condemnation by his rash and insolent words, and he is now to be kept, by our com- mand, in accordance with the clemency of the Apostolic _ See, to his own city alone.’”® Not content with depriving Hilary and Fower or Leo the See of Arles of all metropolitical authority, Leo also obtained an imperial decree confirming the papal sentence: an example of the influence exerted by him over Valentinian III. The difference of the power of the Church in Rome and in Gore, Leo the Great, p. 106. See Milman, History of Latin Christianity, bk. v1., ch. it Ep. Viul., cap, 7. Leo Magn., £f. XI. $Yyn 534 RANK OF CONSTANTINOPLE. [cu. xix. Constantinople is truly remarkable; as Leo found to be the case when he took part in the controversies of the Eastern Empire. With the single exception of Aetius, no one held so great a position in Italy and Gaul as Leo; for if the General has been called “the last of the Romans’’, the pontiff equally deserves the honour of being styled the first of the great Popes. Galla Placidia and her feeble son Valentinian III. granted Leo all the power over the Church he desired ; it was for him to suggest, and for them to legislate. It is true that Valentinian in 452 enacted a law restraining the civil jurisdiction of bishops, which Cardinal Baronius considers sufficiently impious to have provoked the invasion of Italy by the Huns in A.D. 452, and the murder of Valentinian by the out- raged senator Maximus in 455;' but the constitution supporting Leo against Hilary ought surely, in the eyes of a zealous advocate of Papal power, to atone even for an anti-episcopal rescript. Valentinian declares that it is for the good of the whole Church that all should recognise the Pope as their ruler; and no bishop in Gaul is to presume to make innovations or to attempt anything without his sanction. The provincial magis- trate (moderator) is to compel any bishop who is — recalcitrant to obey a summons to Rome. ‘The corre- spondence of Valentinian and his mother Placidia with their relatives at Constantinople, during the Eutychian controversy, repeats the claims of Leo in asserting the very highest position for the See of Rome.? | But Leo found even the pious Theodosius II. far less amenable than the Western colleagues of that emperor. Demet, eo Every emperor in Constantinople con- Constantinople, Sidered it incumbent upon him to maintain The XXVIJIth the right inherent in his office of summon- eaten fe ing councils and appointing their place of ‘ meeting. Leo pleaded in vain for a gather- ing of bishops in Italy to decide the question raised by 1. Baronius, Am. 452, § 52. Tillemont, Azst. des Hmpereurs, Vi. 245, who takes a milder view of this unimportant rescript. Dzct, Chr. Siog., art. ‘Leo’, vol. I11., p. 655a. 2. Leo Magn., Zp. LV., LVI. CH. XIX.] LEO AND ANATOLIUS, 355 Eutyches. Theodosius assembled the bishops at Ephesus in A.D. 449, and Marcian and Pulcheria called them to meet at Chalcedon in a.p. 451. In the case of the latter council Leo was unable to prevent its being held, though he had declared it to be unnecessary and even undesirable. But the XXVIIIth canon of Chalcedon afforded a final proof that the Emperor claimed the right of acting without regard to the wishes of the Pope; for there can be no question as to this canon being made at the instigation of Marcian and Pulcheria. It declares that the Fathers gave the primacy to Rome because it was the imperial city (ua 7d Bacidevew tHv ToAW éxelvny), and that for this reason “the hundred and fifty most godly bishops”’ at the Second General Council in a.p. 381 had given equal honour to New Rome, considering that as it was, like Old Rome, the seat of the Empire and the Senate, it ought also to be magnified in its ecclesiastical position and be considered only second in rank to the elder capital. The canon of Chalcedon proceeded to define the jurisdiction of the See of Constantinople, giving to the Patriarch the sole right of ordaining all the metropolitans in the imperial dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, as well as the bishops engaged in missionary work in those countries (ét 8€ Kat tovs év trois BapBapt- Kols TOV Tpoetpnucvav Stotxnoewv). The title of Arch- bishop, hitherto rarely used, is further given by the Council to the occupant of the See of Constantinople. The Council respectfully notified their decision to Leo, admitting however that it had been arrived at despite the protests of his legates, and requesting him to assent to the canon. They asserted that, after all, nothing had been done beyond ratifying the decree of the Second General Council of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers who met at Constantin- ople in the time of the great Theodosius. But Leo was not to be appeased by fair words. He wrote to Marcian denouncing the self-seeking of Anatolius, bishop of Con- stantinople, and reminding the Emperor that New Rome can never be, like the Old, a see of apostolical origin. To Pulcheria he writes that the canons of Nicaea ought Leo’s indignation. 1. Zp. CIV. 536 LEO AND CHALCEDON. [CH. XIX. never to be set aside, and that the attempt to set Con- stantinople above Alexandria and Antioch, to which the 6th canon of Nicaea had given the second and third places after Rome, would only cause strife and confusion in the Church.! To Anatolius, Leo declares that the decree of the Council of Constantinople in a.p. 381 is worthless, because it had never been referred for confirm- ation to the Apostolic See.? It is to the credit of Leo that though he rebuked even his confidential friend and correspondent, Julian, bishop of Cos, for his weakness in having assented to the objectionable canon, he shewed much anxiety that Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, the prime mover in making the proposal, should receive justice at the hands of Anatolius.* Two years after the close of the Council of Chalcedon, Anatolius, at the suggestion of Marcian, wrote in terms of humble apology to Leo, and his expressions of regret were accepted by the Pope, with a somewhat sarcastic remark that he would have pardoned Anatolius more readily had he not been so anxious to lay the blame of the canon on his clergy rather than on himself. The primacy of Con- stantinople, though not uncontested, seems to have been subsequently recognised in the East; and Leo had to be content with a somewhat illusory victory. recone But in the more important matter of ‘the decision of the theological controversy Leo enjoyed a complete triumph. At the Latvocinium his Tome had been disregarded and the famous Contra- dicituy of his deacon Hilary had been passed by un- noticed. Dioscorus had at this council to all appearance dictated the creed of Christendom ; and, confident in his supremacy, had presumed to excommunicate the Pope. At Chalcedon Leo’s Tome was declared to be the faith of the Fathers, though not till it had been discussed and the scruples of the Illyrian bishops in regard to it had been satisfied. ‘‘ Peter has spoken by Leo; this Cyril taught. Anathema to him who believes otherwise.” For the first time the Roman pontiff, himself ignorant of Greek, settled a theological controversy at a Greek- speaking council. 1. Zp. CV., cap. 2 2. Zp. cvi... 3 Hp. CX. 4 Fp. CAXKY, ae i ES li CH. X1X.] THE DISTRACTED EAST. 537 The Tome of Leo is a judicial summing up of a hotly debated case. ‘There is no attempt to explain the mystery of the Two Natures; Leo simply set forward what Scripture and the Creed of the Church teaches. The tone throughout is dignified; the language, forcible in its antitheses, occasionally becomes even eloquent. The error of Nestorius is made as evident as is that of Eutyches, and the Two Natures of the Godhead and Manhood of our Lord declared to remain unconfusedly and inseparably in His one Person. “ In it,’ says Bishop Gore, “with his other dogmatic epistles, did the master- pen of Leo lay down for the Church the doctrine of the Incarnation with a consummate regard for the equal reality of the Divine and Human natures in this one Person of Christ, the Word.” Valuable, however, as Leo’s Tome was aged in defining the Creed of the Church, it East. is questionable whether the effect of his 2 interference in the controversy was entirely beneficial. The hard legalism of Leo’s mind was opposed to any discussion of what had once been decided. In the Arian controversy the definition of the Council of Nicaea was openly discussed and disputed for nearly sixty years; and when it was finally accepted by the Church, it had been proved to be the only possible solution of the point at issue. The reasonableness displayed by Athanasius, the desire to unite himself to those who agreed with him in spirit though they differed as to the language in which their views should be expressed, helped to heal the breach between the different factions of the distracted Church. But Leo and his successors in the Apostolic See were entirely incapable of a sympathetic insight into the scruples of those who differed from their point of view. Any attempt to re-open the question after the publication of the Tome was regarded by him with horror; and when the Council of Chalcedon had pronounced its decision, it was regarded as blasphemy even to discuss it.2 Asa result, the divisions of the Eastern Church were made 1. Gore, St. Leo the Great, p. 70. 2. £p. CLVI., ad Leonem Augustum, 538 THE PRIMACY OF PETER. [CH. XIX. permanent ; and many, who might have returned to the fold had a bridge been made for them to do so, were for ever excluded. The indignation with which the very suggestion, in the Henoticon of Zeno, of a modification of the Chalcedonian doctrine was received at Rome,} shews the unwillingness of the Papacy to make allow- ance for the subtler minds of the Greek-speaking Christians, and foreshadows the great division between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As regards the position of the Roman See, Leo is perfectly explicit. Alike in practice and in theory he upholds the supremacy of St. Peter, of whom he declares himself to be the unworthy representatives It was customary for Leo on his.‘birth-day’, z.e. the anniversary of his consecration, to address the people and clergy of Rome together with the bishops who had assembled for the occasion; and the main topic of his discourse seems to have been the dignity of the See of Rome as the seat of St. Peter. The whole Church would, he says, always find Peter in Peter’s See.2 Peter was the first to confess Christ ; he was ordained first before all the Apostles, that “from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven, from his being set an umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in Heaven— from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ.’* Not only is Peter above all the Apostles; he is also the channel through which all grace is communicated to them and to the Church. It is not the secular greatness of Rome, but the fact of Peter fixing his seat there, that makes her the first Church in the world.4. The Council of Nicaea, according to Leo, who, like Zosimus, confounds the Sardican canons with those of the great council, confirms the unalterable supremacy of Rome. 1. The Henoticon, published by the Emperor Zeno in A.D. 482, caused a schism between Rome and Constantinople from A.D. 484 to 519. Felix III. excommunicated the Patriarch Acacius, who had suggested it. 2. Sermo Il. 3. Sermo Ill. 4. Lp. LIV., cap. 3. ae a a a at, el Ga CH. XIX,] LEO NO INNOVATOR. 539 Uncompromising as is his theory of the primacy of the Roman Church, Leo shews himself solicitous for popular rights in the different Churches to which he writes. He desires the elections to bishoprics to be free and uncorrupt, he defends Churches against un- warrantable assumptions of authority by metropolitans. But Leo has scant sympathy with the diversities of practice. All Churches should follow the norm of Rome. ‘“ You could never have fallen into this fault” he tells the bishops of Sicily “if you had taken the whole of your observances from the source whence you derive your consecration to the episcopate; and if the See of the blessed Apostle Peter, which is the mother of your priestly dignity, were the recognised teacher of Church-method.” 269, 356-7, 381 Atonement, 171, 176, 185, 300, 403; see also REDEMPTION Attalus, martyr, 68 Attalus, usurper, 524 Atticus, bp. of Constantinople, 450, 527 INDEX. Atticus, bp. of Old Epirus, 53 Attila the Hun, 468, 469, 530 Atys, legend of, 136 Audians, 318 audientes, 229 Augusti appointed by Diocletian, 84 Augustine, bp. of Hippo, 8n., 135, 151, 185, 202n., 230 and n., 243, 289, 295, 412n., 413, 420, 424, 433, 471, 480, 486, 489, 490—517, 524, 525, 530, 560, 571, 579, 5823 doctrines of, 175, 499, 502—I1; Con/esszons, 491—6, 507, 613n., Zhe City of God, 51I—15 Augustus, see OCTAVIAN Aurelian, emperor, 81, 82 Aurelian, politician, 435 Aurelius (Marcus), 47, 54, 60, 63, 64—71, 76, 80, 180, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 198, 203, 598 Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, 498, 505, 527 Aurelius Victor, gon. Ausonius, poet, 415, 417 Autolycus, 161 Auxentius, Arian, 424 Auxentius, Arian bishop of Milan, 416, 422 Auxentius, pupil of Ulfilas, 560 Auxerre, 563. Avitus, 540 Axum, 556, 557 Aziluth, 125 Baal worship, 74 Babington (Prof.), 614n., 615n. Babylas, bp. of Antioch, 79, 366, 379 Babylon, 3, 4, 8, 123, 149, 246n. Bacchus, 602 Bagoas, eunuch, 20 Bahran, king of Persia, 150; see VARANES . Balaam, 133 Balder, 559 © Bannaventa, 562 Baptism, 29, 30, 102, 173, 227n., 228, 230-1, 235, 237, 241, 262, 269 and n., 507, 543, 558, 580; of John, 25, 30; of infants, 231 and n., 507; ceremonial of, 576-7 ; Hellenic, 187; Mithraic 185 INDEX, baptismal vow, 55, 231, 576 _ baptistery, 422, 576 Bar-Anina, 486 Barbatio, general, 354 Barcochab, 59 Bardesanes or Bardaisan, 137, 141, 595 Barlaam and Fosaphat, 205 Barnabas, Epistle of, 8n., 97—100, IOI, 103n., 109, 253 Barnabas (St.), 30n., 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 97, 100, 106, 212, 213n. Baronius, 54n, 534 Barsumas, a Nestorian, 467, 471, 551 Bartholomew (St.), 42 Basil, bp. of Ancyra, 342n., 345, 347, 349» 377, 378n., 382 Basil, bp. of Amasia, 296n. Basil (St), bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 168n., 356, 360, 380—7, 390-1, 393-4 and n., 402—4, 440, 445, 453, 545, 568, 570, 581, 582, 587 Basil, father of St. Basil, 381 Basil, presbyter of Ancyra, martyr, 372 basilicas, 575; at Milan, 423 and n. Basilides, 134, 136-7, 138, 591-2 Basilina, mother of Julian, 352 Baslic, 563 Baur, 9in., 93, 114, I15n., 134, 165n., 167n., 170n., 17In., 199n., 200n., 202n., 203n. Bazaar of Heraclides, 462n., 464 Beausobre, quoted, 123n. Bede (Venerable), 229 and n., 564n. Bellarmine, Cardinal, 545 Belser (Dr.), g1n. Benson (Abp.), 223, 224n., 265n., 266n., 268n. Berenice, 247 Bernard (Dr.), 132n., 212n. Bernard (St.), 112 and n. Bernice, 16n. Beryllus of Bostra, 165, 275 Bethlehem: church at, 324, 5753 erome at, 482, 485—8 Bethune-Baker (Dr. J. F.), 142n., 147n., 158n., 162n., 163n., 165n., 166n., 168n., 170n., 17in., 172M., 174N., 313n., 314n., 336n., 340n., 344n., 345n., 39In., 397M, 452n., 4530-, °454n-, 456n., 4572, 621 458n., 460n., 462n., 464n., 467n., 471n., 473n., 478, 499n., 502n., 507n., 508n., 509n. Beugnot (Mons.), 35In., 364n., 392n., 404n., 418n. Bevan, 3n., gn. Biblias, martyr, 67 Bigg (Dr.), 149n., 162n., 185n., 192n., 195n., 198n., 200n., 246n., 273n., 286n., 420n. Bingham, Antzguztes, 46n., 227n., 229n., 443n., 603 and n. ‘birth-days’ of martyrs, 581; see NATALE bishops, 42, 63, 102, 145, 212—28, 236, 250, 266, 564 Biterrae, synod at, see SYNODS Bithynia, 38, 54, 57, 233, 352m. Bito (Valerius), 107, 108 Blandina, martyr, 67, 68, 73 Bleek, 276n. Blemmyes, 464, 565 Blesilla, widow, ascetic, 483, 485 Bogomili, 151 Boissier (M. Gaston), 67n., 86n., 2820.,.- 351Ds, 352.4 307s, 408n., 414n., 41$n., 420n. Boniface, Count of Africa, 500, 515-16, 517 Boniface, pope, 525, 527-8 Bonosus, foster-brother Jerome, 480 Mates fags destroyed, 87, 19 Bordeaux pilgrim, 582 Bosio, 609n. Bostra, synod at, 165 Botheric, 428 Bourbon, general, 524 Brace (C. L.), 188n. Brahmins, 197 brethren, the Lord’s, 29, 30n., 31, 533 see JAMES Bright, 293n, 395n., 463n., 473n., ' §04n., 506n., 509n., 525n. Brightman, 236n. Britain, 39, 52n., 84, 184, 392, 409, 423, 479, 561-2, 565 ; Constan- tine proclaimed emperor in, 89 Brooke, 144n, Bruce, traveller, 8n., 55 Brutus, 195 Bryennius (Archbp.), 101, 103, 107 and n. of St, 622 Buddas Terebinthus, 149 Buddhism, 126 Bulgaria, 151 Bull (Bp.), 166n., 313n., 332n. Bunsen (Chevalier de) 114, 229n., 253n., 258, 264n. Burdegala (Bordeaux), synod at, seé SyYNODs Burkitt (Prof.), 32n., 41n., I41n., §43n., 547n., 551n., 569n. Burn (Dr. A.), 312n., 424n. Burrhus, deacon of Ephesus, 111 Bury (Prof.), 188n., 435n., 449n., 450n., 564n. Butler (Dom), 334n., 447n., 465n. Bythus, 594 Byzantium, 305, 569; see also Con- STANTINOPLE Cabbalah, see KABBALA Caecilianus, bp. of Carthage, 288, 290—4, 304 Caesar (Julius), 326, 417 Caesarea (Palestine), 18, 36, 106; church of, 311, 319 Caesarea (Cappadocia), 381, 383, 385, 570 Caesariani, 80 Caesaro-papalism, 457 Caesars appointed by Diocletian, 84 Caiaphas, 23; his house, 582 Cain, 140, 144, 590, 594. Cainites, 134, 136, 590 Caius, 64 and n., 177 and n. Caligula (Caius), 35, 36 and n., 48 Callinicum, riot at, 427 Callistus, or Callixtus, bp. of Rome, 169, 170, 171, 254—61, 519, 598, 615; Catacomb of, 598, 599, 608, 609 Calpurnius, 561, 562 Calvin, 476, 509n. Cambridge Zexts and Studies, 66n., 73n., 206n., 263n. Candace, 34, 228n., 556 Candida Casa, monastery of, 564 Candidian, 463n. candles, 575 canistrum, 609 canon law, 574 Canon; New Testament, 51, 63, 96 and n., 118, 144 Canons of Nicaea, 319, 527, 5353; of Antioch, 337n.; of Gangra, 573 INDEX. Cantabrum, 92n. Canterbury, 408n. Capitol, 321 Cappadocia, 30n., 70, 381, 385 Cappadocian Fathers, 313n., 380-7, 3970., 402—4, 433, 445, 455-6 Captivity of the Jews, 3, 123, 124 Caracalla, emperor, 73, 271 Carbonari, 50n. Carinus and Numerian, 82-3 Carneades, Academic philosopher, 19In. Carpocrates, 134, 136, 142n., 252 Carpophorus, 255-6 Carpus, bp. of Thyatira, martyr, 79 Carthage, 74, 288, 491, 515, 517; ._ Church of, 222—6, 243, 263, 269, 289, 290—95, 519, 570; cabal at, 290—2 ; see SYNODS Carus, emperor, 82 Cassian, John, 508, 587 Castalia, spring of, 370 Castor and Pollux, 321 Castricia, 444 Catacombs, 239-40 and n., 244n., 247-8, 422, 480, 583, 596— 616; Jewish, 600, 606 Catechetical School of Alexandria, 161, 165, 168, 271, 275, 381 catechist, 229 catechumens, IOI, 228—30, 236-7 | Cathari, 261-2. See PURITANISM Catholic Church, 145, 209, 223; organization of, 209—42 Catholic Faith, 145 Catholicity, 398 *Catholicus’, 553 Cato the Elder, 191n., 195, 285 Cato the Younger, 194 Catullus, 604n, Celestine, bp. of Rome, 462, 528, 530, 539, 563, 564 Celestius, 503—5, 507, 510, 525 celibacy, 286, 432, 487; of clergy, _ 320, 438, 521, 557, 573 Celidonius, 533 Celsus, 45, 46, 47, 65n., 76, 178, 190, 196, 202; his treatise, 198—200 Cephas, see PETER cenobite monks, 587 censor, office of, 76, 79 . Centumcellae, 262 Cerdon, friend of Marcion, 138 Cerealis, governor, 437 INDEX. Cerinthus, 134, 142, 1 Couieriee Geek Chalcedon, council of,see CouNncILs charismata, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 222, 225 charitable organization, 581 Charles, (Dr. R. H.), 8n., 558n. Charles Martel, 282 Chase (Bp.), 246n. Chi and Kappa, 369 children, exposure of, 285-6 Children of the Sun, 151 Chiliasm, see MILLENARIANISM China, 241n., 467, 550, 563 chorepiscopi, 570 Chosroés, 552 Chrestus, tumults in Rome re- specting, 38, 48 Christ, times of, 1528; honoured by Alexander Severus, 74; coming of, 103 Christ, Gnostic ideas of, 140, 589, 599, 594, 595 Christian, name of, 34 Christianity : a re/igzo lictta, 81, 82, Qin.; a religie zliczta, 45, 48, 59, 63, 206; Jewish, 95n. Christmas, 580 Christology: progressive in New Testament, according to Baur, 94—6; Marcion’s, 140-13; of Clementine Literature, 143; of Letter to Diognetus, 157; of Justin, 160, Arian, 302n. Christological controversy, 457-8, 478; see INCARNATION, Locos DOCTRINE, etc. Chronicle of Eusebius, 482 Chronicon Paschale, 120n., 224n. Chrysanthius, 355 Chrysaphius, eunuch, 468, 472 Chrysostom (St. John), 40, 101, 110, 230n., 259, 277, 371, 396, 426, 429-30, 440—51, 457, 458, 461, 466, 475, 489, 506, 518, 522, 561, 570, 571, 578, 579 Church: Constantine’s legislation respecting, 286; development of, 210-11; 289, 479; organiza- tion of, 209—237 Church: Apostolic, 29—40, 210; Manichaean, I51 churches: form of, 574-5; first erected, 75, 519-20 ; decorations of, 575-6 623 Cibalis, battle of, 295 Cicero, 17n., 45, 421, 491, 493 Cilicia, 37, 449 Circesium, 542 Circumcellions, 294-5, 412n., 497, 500, 501 circumcision, 98, 557 Clarke; Wy (K-00 S¥. Base] the Great, 581n. Classics, study of, 367-8, 405, 421, 481, 485, 491 classification of Gnostic sects, 133-5 Claudian, poet, 69 and n., 413-14, 415, 439n. Claudius, emperor, 35, 38, 41, 48 Claudius Albinus, 72 Claudius Apollinaris, 70 and n. Claudius Ephebus, 107, 108 Claudius Severus, 189 Clemens (Flavius), 44, 52, 104, 106, 108n., 247, 249 Clement of Philippi, 103 Clement of Alexandria, 5n., 42, 64, g6n., 97, 99, 100, I19, 120n., 135, 148-9, 154, 161-2, 173, 175) 1799. F7S, + 186m; 203, 239n., 246n., 257N., 271, 273, 276, 600, 603, 605-6 Clement of Rome, 40-1, 44, 46n., g6n., 103—9, 142-3, 215-16, 233, 234, 246, 452n., 606 —— Epistle of, 41-2, 52, 97n., ror, 103—9, 215-16, 227n., 234, 244n., 249-50, 259-60, 276 — Second Epistle, see CLEMEN- TINE LITERATURE Clements mentioned by Tacitus, 104 and n. Clementine Literature, 95, 101, 103, 105, 106-7, 109, 141, 142-3, 313n. Clementine Liturgy, 219, 236 Cleomenes, 170 Cleopatra of Egypt, 18 Cleopatra of Jerusalem, 21 clergy, 211, 214, 225, 483-4, 557, 570-71; laws respecting, 88, 286-7; pagan, 362; see CELI- BACY Cletus, 105 clinici, 262 Codex Alexandrinus, 107, 109 Codex Sinaiticus, 97, 109, 253 Coele-Syria, 382, 470 624 Cohortatio ad Graecos, 159 Colluthus, 303 Cologne, 575: catacombs at, 597 Colossians, Epistle to, 40, 96n., 129, 130 Colossian heresy, 40, 129-30, 131 Comana, Chrysostom died at, 450 commemoration of saints in Eucha- rist, 577 commentaries, 126, 144, 275, 486, 555 Commodus, emperor, 48, 66, 71, 195, 255 Commonitorium, 527, 562 Communicatio idiomatum, 460 Communion of Saints, 611 competentes, 229 \ Confessions of St. Augustine, see AUGUSTINE confessors, 78, 240, 267, 201 Connaught, 562, 563 Connolly (Dom), 551n. conscience, liberty of, 92, 279 consecration of Elements, 234, 235 Conservatives, so-called, 331, 336 Constans, emperor, 295, 333, 337; 338, 339, 341, 342, 497 Constantia, empress, sister of Con- stantine, 296, 301 Constantia, daughter of Constantine, 353> 354n. Constantine, 84n., 88—92, 203, 211, 279—327 passim, 328-30, 333, 336, 350, 359, 361, 363, 389, 397, 494, 497, 519, 520, 546, 575, 576, 580, 582, 598 Constantine II., 333, 338 Constantine, usurper, 526 Constantinople, 103, 317, 325, 327, 393, 394—7, 398—401, 403, 434, 439, 447, 448, 450, 458, 472, 474, 522, 541, 561, 569 ; see also BYZANTIUM council of, see COUNCILS ; synods at, see SYNODS Constantius Chlorus, 84 and n., 88, 89, 280 Constantius, emperor, 328—50, 351 and n., 353, 359, 357s 358, 359, 363, 375, 377, 378n., 382, 388. 404, 417 converts, 228, 287 Conybeare, 13n., 47M, 334n., 555n., 584n. copiatae, 581 270n., INDEX. Coponius, 23 Coptic church, 474 Coracion, 178 Corinth, 38, 39; church of, 40, 41, 107, 214, 233 Corinthians, St. Paul’s Epistles to, 40n. , 51, 93, 94, 108, 128, 214, 232, 233°4 —— Epistle of Clement to, 40-1, 46n., 52, 101; 103, 107—9, 215, 227N., 234, 259 . Cornelius, centurion, 34-5, 228n. Cornelius, bp. of Rome, 226, 261, 262, 268n., 572, 6113; Cata- comb of, 609 Corona Milités, Tertullian’s, 235 Costobar, 20 Cotton (Dr.), 7n. Councils, procedure of, 574 COUNCILS :— General, 222, 304, 320n., 329, 395, 399, 443, 451, 456, 463, 472, 535» 546, 565 Alexandria, 368, 376, 390n., 455 Antioch, 332, 336—8, 339-40, , 449» 559 Ariminum, 347—9, 375, 376, 377 Arles, 288, 293, 316, 342 Chalcedon, 320n., 337n., 395n., 443n., 469, 472—4, 534—6, 537, 551s 552, 565, 566, 574n. Constantinople, 320n., 395-7, 399, 403s 443, 456, 535, 536, 546 Elvira, 46, 228n. 237, 573 Ephesus, 463-4, 466, 506, 546, 5513; the ‘* Latrocinium’, 471-2, 473) 536, 5740. Gangra, 573 Jerusalem, 36-7, 95, 245, 332n- Laodicea, 311n. Milan, 342-3, 356, 375 Nicaea, 174, 304—320, 329-30, 537) 538, 544, 559, 507; 5740. Philippopolis, 338-9 Sardica, 228, 338-9 Seleucia, 347—9, 377; 382 Sirmium, 344—7 Toledo, 259, 260 Trent, 486 See SYNODS Creation, theories of, 123, 128, 142, 143, 589, 594 INDEX. CREEDS :— early, 153 and n., 230, 3r1n. Athanasian, 4172n. of Antioch, 336—8 Constantinopolitan, 395n. the Dated, 337, 347, 348 of the Dedication, 336—8, 345n., 346, 349, 377 Eusebian, 308, 311-12 the Macrostich, 340 Nicene, 172, 243, 308, 311n., 312—16, 318, 320, 329-30, 336, 341, 343, 348, 350, 389n., 395 and n., 400, 452n. of Nice, 347—9, 350, 382 of Sirmium, 344—7 the Union, 464 Crescens, philosopher, 66, 159 Cresconius, 500 Crete, Christianity in, 38, 213n. diay attributed to Christians, 67, 13 criminals and debtors, specting, 71, 284 Crispus, son of Constantine, 281n., 288, 296, 321, 322, 326 criticism, Biblical, 277 Critolaus, Peripatetic philosopher, Igtn. Cross, 421, 5573; in catacombs, 605 ; sign of, 103, 367, 605; invention of, 324; Constan- tine’s vision of, 281-2 crucifixion abolished, 285 Cruttwell, 139n. cubiculum, 611 Cubricus, 150 Cucusus, 400 ; Chrysostom at, 449-50 Cumont, 185n. Cunningham (Dr. W.), 509n., 510n. Cureton (Dr.), 318n. ; on Ignatian Epistles, 114, 115 Curetonian Syriac MS., 547 curiales, 287, 367 Curubis, Cyprian exiled to, 79 cynics, 360 Cyprian, bp. of Carthage, 77, 78, 79, 80n., 222—4, 227n., 238n., 24In., 252n., 257, 259, 260—3, 265—9, 288, 289, 291, 423, 487n., 568, 574, O11, 615 Cyprus, 36 a gat province of, 59, 436—9, 599 é laws ree 625 Cyril, bp. of Alexandria, 270, 373, 406, 458—67, 469, 475s 476, 477; 527, 536, 546 Cyril, bp.of Jerusalem, 324n., 458n., 571, 576, 5773; Catechetical lectures of, 571, 576—8 Cyrus, diocese of, 470 Cyrus the Persian, 548 Dacia, 559 Daemon of Socrates, 176 daemons, 198, 199, 201, 240 Daillé on Ignatian Letters, 114 Daire, 564 Dalaradia, 562 Damas, bp. of Magnesia, 111 Damascus, 34 Damasus, bp. of Rome, 387, 397n., 398, 411, 422, 456, 480, 482, 484, 518, 520, 527, 564, 583, 599 Daniel, 608 ; Book of, 8, 202 Dante, 54n., 322, 499n., 616 ‘ Dated’ Creed, see CREEDS David, 21, 608; descendants of, 53 Davids (T. W. Rhys), 126n. Davidson, I55n. Da Vinci (Leonardo), 607 deacons, 33-4, 102, 116, 213, 214, ZE5, 210, 215,1 242, 224,227, 235, 236, 250, 484, 521, 571, 572, 60In. deaconesses, 56, 215, 236, 573 De Broglie, 282, 286n., 287n., 290n., 356n., 376n., 380n., 387n., 391n. decad, 593 Decius, 76; edict of, 77; persecu- tion by, 76—9, 257, 261, 266, 268, 272 De Civitate Det, Augustine’s treatise, 5II—I5 decretals, 521 ; false, 109 decurionate, 286 Dedication, Creed of, see CREEDS dedication festivals, 613 delators, 45, 52, 71. Demeter, 187 Demetrias, 507-8 Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria, 80 and n., 226, 271, 274, 275, 277 Pelagius’ letter to, 626 INDEX. Demetrius II., 8 Demiurgus, 128, 133, 139, 140, 589, 94 Dekaron bp. of Constantinople, 379s 394, 399N., 400 Demosthenes, cook to the emperor Valens, 384 De Pressense, 114, 169n., 171n., 239n., 240n. De Rossi, 217n., 240n., 247, 248, 249, 599, 608 De Soyres, 174n, 224n. Desposyni, 53n. Determinism, 510 De Vita Contemplativa, 13n., 334n. Devs, 123 Diana of Ephesus, 182 Dianius of Caesarea, 335, 349, 382-3 Diaspora, 3, 4, 33 Diatessaron, 144, 543, 547, 555 Dichu, 563 Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 226.5 -230n.,;* 260n.4" §73n., 614n. Dictionary of Christian Biography, 41n.,.790.,,91n., TOSu., 1O7n., 1150); '119n.,° 124n., TZ6n-, 144n., I5In., 166n., 174n., 202n., 288n., 308n., 324n., 342n., 346n., 366n., 382n., 390n., 394n., 40In., 410n., 435n., 436n., 438n., 439n., 441n., 445n., 465n., 467n., 470n., 48In., 498n., 509n., 521n., 534n., 539n., 547n., 553+, 5550. Didach2, 100—3, 215, 219, 229, 230, 231n., 233, 234 Didascalia, 217n. Didymus the Blind, 381, 485 Dill (Prof.), 52n., 182n., 183n., 184n., 185n., 188n., I9In., 196n., 20In., 217n., 405n., 416n., 484n., 523n., 60In., 614n., 615 Diocletian, 44, 47, 48, 63, 82—90, 151, 196, 269, 277, 279, 280, _ 283, 284, 285, 326, 425, 553 diocese, 220, 470 Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, 440, 447, 454, 457 Diogenes, a Stoic, 19In. Diognetus, Letter to, 157 Dion Cassius, 43, 44n., 52n., 69, 70 Dionysius, bp. of Alexandria, 79, 80, I, 165-6, 168, 172, 177, 178, 226, 24In., 262, 2°74; 302, 313n. Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, 96n., 109n, Dionysius, bp. of Milan, 343 Dionysius, bp. of Rome, 166, 262, 313n. Dioscorus, bp. of Alexandria, 406, 467, 469—74, 531, 536 Dioscorus, confessor, 78 Dioscorus, monk, 446 Diospolis (Lydda), Synod at, see SYNODS Dis, 183, 616 disciplina arcani, 146n., 229-30 discipline, 40, 214, 218, 236-7, 267, 9 discourses of our Lord, 24 divorce, 237 Dobschutz, 35n., 52n., 129n., 133n., 253n. Docetism, 127, 131, 134, 145, 156, 172, 176, 452, 476 doctors, present at councils, 574 dodecad, 593 Déllinger (Dr.), 258 Dominica, empress, east 393 Domitian, emperor, 44, 48, 52, 53, 128n., 64, 103, 104, 108, 197, 247, 248n., 249 Domitian, praefect, 354 Domitilla, see FLAVIA Domnus, bp. of Antioch, 470, 471 Domnus, bp. of Samosata, 298n. Donation of Constantine, 321-3 Donatists, 269, 288—95, 304, 316, 326, 329, 490, 496—50I, 503, 506, 515 Donatus of Casae Nigrae, 292, 293 Donatus the Great, 292, 293, 497 Donatus (Aelius), grammarian, 480 door-keepers, 218, 236, 572 Dorner, Person of Christ, 158n., 160n., 161 and n., 162n.,165n., 172n., 298n., 300n., 302 and n., 309n., 310N., 4530., 4 67n. Dorotheus, chamberlain of Dio- cletian, 85, 87 Dorotheus, disciple of Origen, 277 Dositheans, IIn. Drummond, 156n. Duad and Monad, 143 ee ee es a Pore INDEX. ducenarius, secular office, 167 Duchesne, 218n., 220n., 228n., 229n., 5390., 553n. Easter, question of, 120-1, 221, 251, 318, 580, 584; public holiday, 398n. Eastern Church, 254-5, 325, 377, 381, 434-76, 502, 537-5, 547 Ebionites, 118, 134, 141, 142, 150, 156-7 Eborius of York, 293 Ecclesiasticus, 6 Ecdicius, praefect, 369 eclecticism, 137, 193, 570, 573 Edersheim, 6n. Edesius, 556 Edessa, church of, 41, 141, 466-7, 543, 546 pee edicts: of Decius, 77; of Diocletian, 87-8; of Galerius, 90-1; of Gallienus, 80, 82, 86; of Maximin Daza, 92; of Valerian, 79-80; of Constantine, 92; of Julian, 366, 376, 405; of Theodosius, 398-9, 401, 412n.; of Honorius, 525 edict of Milan, 45, 92, 243, 269, 279; 283-4, 300; 349, 567 Edomites, 16n., 19 Egypt, 3, 6, 64, 72, 91n., 126, 474; religion of, 126, 137, 265-6, 591 ined Gospel according to, 13 éxxAnola, 209-10, 217 Elagabalus, see HELIOGABALUS elders, see PRESBYTERS Eleazar, high-priest, 23 election, 509 election of clergy, 226-7 Eleusinian Mysteries, 59, 355» 357 : Eleusius, bp. of Cyzicus, 345, 377, 378, 379, 400 Elijah in catacombs, 602 Elizabeth, Queen of England, 32o0n., 6 187-8, 32 Elkesai, Book of, 141 Elkesaites, 143, 150 Elvira, Council of, see COUNCILS Emanations, Gnostic, 123, 589 emblems in catacombs, 602, 604, 606 627 Emesa, idol of, 74, 184 Emmelia, mother of St. Basil, 381 Emperors, 48—92, 540-1 ; see also CONSTANTINE, CONSTANTIUS, JULIAN, THEODOSIUS, etc. Encratites, 66, 144, 412n. Encyclopaedia Biblica, $n., 93n., 213n., 234n. energumens, 240, 572 Enoch, 143 Enoch, Book of, 6n., 8-9, 558 En-Soph, 124 Epagathus (Vettius), 67 Epaphras, 118 Ephebus (Claudius), 107 Ephesians, St. Paul’s Epistle to, 40, 96n., 130, 141, 214, 593 Ephesians, Epistle of Ignatius to, III, 114 Ephesus, 111, 116, 119, 159, 213n., 244; church of, 38, 39, 40, 42, i234, 2713, ¢ heresy, at, 130—2; council at, see CouNCILS Ephraim Syrus (St.), 544-5, 555 Epictetus, 189, 192, 194, 195, 203 Epicureanism, 189-90, 195, 196, _ 302, 419 Epigonus, 170 Epiphanius (St.), bp. of Salamis, IIn., 138n., 142n., 169n., 2440.54 2700., © 315, 4 345n., 395n., 445n.; 446, 447, 448. " 482n., 483, 487-8, 522 Epiphany, 557-8, 580 episcopacy, 42, 63, 102, 212-28 epochs of Church History, 48, 63-4 epitaphs, in catacombs, 602—4, 612 épavos, 217 Erdmann, 200n, 20In. Esau, 140 Esdras, Fourth Book of, 558 Essenes, 12-13, 26, 125-6, 131, 143 Essenism, Christian; 129, 130n. Etchmiadzin, 553, 555 Etheria, pilgrim, 575, 583 Ethiopia, 34, 556 Ethiopian church, 42, 556—8, 565, 569 ; curious custom, 557-8 Ethiopic version, 558 Euarestus, pope, 601 Eucharist, 29, 56n., 102, 109, 214, 215, 219, 231—6, 241, 251,428, 460, 577-8; evening celebra- tion, 584; in catacombs, 597, RR2 628 Eucharist (continued) : 609, 611; in Cyril of Jerusalem, 577; Mithraic, 185 Euchites, 151 Euchrocia, Priscillianist, 410, 412 Euclid, 169n. Eudoxia, empress, 439, 442, 444, 448, 449 Eudoxius, bp. of Constantinople, 345,» 349» 379 394, 452n. Eugenius, usurper, 419, 430 Eugraphia, 444 Euippus, bishop, 384 Eulalius, bp. of Nazianzus, 402 Eulalius, anti-pope, 527-8 Eulogius, philosopher, 306 Eulogius, bp. of Caesarea, 505 Eunomius, an Arian, 380n., 399n., 400, 401 Euodius, bp. of Antioch, 110 Euphratensis, 474, 542 Euphrates, bp. of Cologne, 339, 340 Eusebia, empress, 342, 356 Eusebian party, 330, 332, 333, 334-5» 339 337, 338,341, 343-4, 345, 350, 380, 389 Eusebius, bp. of Caesarea, historian, Sn., 7is, 130., 32na 40, aan 48n., 52n., 53n., 54, 58n., 59, 60, 62, 64n., 65n., 66n., 67n., vO, 71, 72n., ‘75m,.79n., SO0n., 8in., 82, 85n., 86n., 87n., oIn., 92n., 97, 100, IOIn., 103, 104, 405, ‘109n.,° 113, ¥15, (116, 117, 116," 1i9n7, 120n., I2In., 127, 141, 142n., 144n., 146, 149n., 159, 161, 162n., 165n., 166n., 167n., 168, 169n., 170n., 177, 178n., 197n,,' 202m, 0 °204 ai an: 21Sh,, 2210.) 224070 ein 244n., 245n., 248n., 250n., 25ini, @52ti, 2k on\," 2o2n., 2700. 27 Ih, 272, 2e70, a0, 281 and n., 283, 287n., 293n., 296n., 301, 305, 307—9, 310— 312, 313, 315, 317n., 319n., 324, 331-2, 336, 345, 458n., 547n., 582 Eusebius of Dorylaeum, 470 Eusebius, bp. of Caesarea in Cappa- docia, 383 Eusebius, bp. of Nicomedia, 301, 303, 307, 311, 315, 316, 325, 332 334, 352, 394, 559 INDEX, irwes Eusebius, bp. of Samosata, 385 Eusebius, bp. of Vercellae, 343 Eusebius, chamberlain, 333, 3435 354, 360, 361 Eusebius, monk, 446 Eusebius, martyr at Gaza, 372 Eustathius, bp, ef Antioch, 313, 316, 378, 555 Eustathius, bp. of Sebaste, 345, 349; 377, 379, 382, 386, 581 Eustochium (St.), 483, 485, 486 Euthymius, monk, 446 Eutropius, historian, 283n. Eutropius, minister of Arcadius, 439, 44°, 441 Eutyches, 470—3, 531-2, 533 Eutychianism, 456, 468, 470—6, 528, 534—8 Eutychius of Alexandria, 271 Euzoius, deacon, 315 ia ie bp. of Antioch, 468n., 481 Evagrius, friend of Julian, 352n. Evangelion da Méhallété, 537 Evangelion da Mépharréshé, 537 evangelists, 116, 214 Eve, 135, 151, 589-90, 594 Evodius, praefect, 411 Ewald, 8 exorcists, 131, 218, 225, 240, 570, 572 Exucontians, Arians called, 303 Ezra, 3, 7 469, Fabian, bp. of Rome, 79, 224, 258, 261, 262 Fabius, bp. of Antioch, 572 Fabretti, 603 Falconia Proba, 507 ‘familia’ of emperors, 43-4, 244 family tribunals, 63n., 249 famine, 65, 81 Farrar, 46n. fast days, 102 Fatak, 150 Fausta, wife of Constantine, 84n., 89, 28In., 321, 323, 326 Faustinianus, legendary father of Clement of Rome, 106, 107 Faustinus, 346n. Faustus and Faustinus, legendary © brothers of Clement of Rome, 106 . . Faustus, deacon, 437 INDEX. Faustus, Manichaean bishop, 493 Faustus, of Britain, 562 Fedilimid, 563 Felicissimus, African deacon, 224, 267, 268n. Felicissimus, Roman martyr, 611 Felicitas, African martyr, 72-3, 225n. Felicitas, widow, martyred with her seven sons, 66 Felix, bp. of Aptunga, 291, 292, , 2935 294 Felix (St.), 56n., 420, 424 Felix III., pope, 538n. Felix, anti-pope, 346 Feltoe (Dr.), Dzonsyius of Alexan- dria, 166n., 178n. Ferouers, 123 Festal Letters, 318, 339n. Festivals of martyrs, 580 Field, Hexapla, 277n. Figulus (P. Nigidius), 196 Filocalus (Furius Dionysius), 422 fires at Nicomedia, $7 Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappa- docia, 167n. fiscus Judaicus, 52 fish, emblem, 240, 606, 610n. Fisher, 149n., 157n., 161n., 162n,, | 174n., 386n. fisherman, emblem, 606 Flacilla, empress, 429 Flacillus, 335 flamens, 46, 322-3 Flavia Domitilla, 44n., 52, 104, 108n., 247—9; catacomb of, 247-8, 598, 601, 602, 607 Flavia Neapolis, 158 Flavian, archbp. of Constantinople, 469, 470-1, 531 — Flavian, bp. of Antioch, 429-30, 441 eae eens 44, 52, 106, 247—9, 35 Florinus, 120 Fochlad, wood of, 562, 563 Fortchernn, 563 Fortescue (Dr. A.), 453n. Fortunatus, 107-8 Frederick I. of Prussia, 326 Freeman, 516n. Free Will, doctrine of, 11, 149, 175-6, 184, 456, 458, 475-7, 502—I1 Fremantle (Dean), 481n. 629 Freppel (Mgr.), 225n. frescoes in catacombs, 602, 607-10 Freundsberg, general, 524 Friday observed as a fast, 102, 287n., 580 Friedlander, 142n. Frigidus, battles of, 419, 430 Frith (I.B.) 281n. Fronto of Cirta, philesopher, 65 Frumentius, 556, 557 Fulminata, Legio, 69-70 and n. Fundanus (Minucius), proconsul of Asia, 54, 59, 204 Fuscianus, praefect, 255 eae belief in, 7, 8, 10, 12, 185 Gaiane (St.), 553 Gainas, Gothic chieftain, 439, 443 Gaiseric, Vandal chieftain, 420, 516, 517, 518, 530, 540, 558 Galatia, 38 and n., 129 Galatians, Epistle to, 36, 37n., 38n., 93, 108n., 202 Galen, 169n., 196 Galerius, emperor, 84, 86, 87—91, 280n., 326 Galerius, proconsul of Africa, 79 Galilee, 17, 21, 23, 24 Galla, wife of Theodosius, 426 Galla Placidia, 432, 516, 530, 534s 607 Gallienus, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 261 Gallus, Caesar, 333, 342, 352—4, 360, 366 Gangra, canons of, 573 Gardner, Miss, 435n., 436n., 438n. Gaul, 22, 39, 84, 90, 92, 119, 349, 357-8, 359, 408, 409, 423, 479, 509, 540, 562, 565 ; church of, 40, 64, 413, 521, 526, 532—43 persecution in, 66—8, 408—13 Gautama, 126 Gaza, 372 Gehenna, 9 Genealogies : Asmoneans and Hero- dians, 16; Diocletian and col- leagues, 84; Flavian emperors, 248 Gentiles, 13, 24, 31, 33—8, 60, 61, 93, 94, 143, 183 George, intruding bp. of Alexandria, 343» 368, 372, 373, 376, 406 George of Laodicea, 347 630 George tears down imperial edict, 87 and n. George (St.) martyr, 556 Gerhard, 418n. Germanicus, martyr, 60 Germanus (St.),. bp. of Auxerre, 563 Gervasius, martyr, 425, 426 Geta, emperor, 73 Gibbon, 43n., 71n.,75n., 82n., 84n., 86, gon., 188, 272n., 285n., 318, 32In., 343n., 35In., 354n., 3570., 356n., 359n., 362n., 363n., 392n., 418n., 425n., 428n., 547n. Gieseler, 133, 134n. Gifford (S.) 73n. Gildo, 498 gladiatorial games, 71, 229n., 238, 288, 494 glasses in catacombs, 605, 614 Glover, Life and Letters, 352n., 3570.) G0Inep, 3020), .3730., 437n., 438n., 483n., 496n. Glycerius, fanatical deacon, 383 Glycerius, emperor, 541 Gnosticism, 119, I20, 122, 126, 127—30, 133—46, 148-9, 153, 157, 169, 175, 176, 183, 252, 409, 452 Gnostic Christ, 141-3, 452, 589, 599, 593, 594, 595 Gnostic, the Christian, 135, 148-9 Gnostic sects, common features, 127-9 Gnostics, Alexandrian and Syrian, 133 Golgotha, 582 Good Friday, 580 Good Shepherd, in catacombs, 239, 602, 603, 606, 615 Gordians, three emperors, 75 Gore (Bp.), 472n., 533, 537 Gorgonius, chamberlain of Dio- cletian, 85, 87 Gospels, 229; Papias concerning the, 117-18 Gothi minores, 559 Gothic version, 560 Goths, 74, 380, 392-3, 427, 442, 5II—I3, 523-4, 559-60, 561 Grace, 458, 502—11 Graces, in catacombs, 602 Graetz, History of SFerusalem, 6, I2n, 36n., 126n. INDEX, Gratian, emperor, 392, 409—~I12, 415, 417, 418, 422, 423 Gratus (Valerius), 23 Great Synagogue, 7 Greek Church, 319, 450-1, 466-7, 474, 475, 502, 547 Greek New Testament, text of, 40 Greek sources of Gnosticism, 135 Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, 322n., 414n., 418n., 422n., 484n., 519n., 520n., 524, 529n., 5710. Gregory I., pope, 54, 261, 502n. Gregory III., pope, 599 Gregory VII., pope, 254n. Gregory of Cappadocia, intruding bp, of Alexandria, 334, 335, ~ 340 Gregory the Illuminator; 88n., 544, 552-3, 554 A Gregory, bp. of Nazianzus, 349; 377, 381, 498 Gregory (St.), of Nazianzus, 353n., 356, 363n., 368n., 377, 380—7, 399; 394—7; 399, 4OI, 402-3, 445, 450, 455-6, 482, 485, 579 Gregory of Nyssa, 77n., 378n., 380—7, 403-4, 455-6, 476, 477 Gregory Thaumaturgus, 77n., 168, 579 Gregory of Tours, 68 Guizot, 286n. Gurgenes, 556 Gwatkin (Prof.), 155n., 157n., -270n.,, 300ni, 304n., 307n., 31In., 313, 314n., 316n., 33in., 3320., 3340., 339n., 345n., 346n., 347n., 376n., 378n., 379R., 380nn., 382n., 387n., 389n., 391n., 395n. Gwyn (Dr.), 545n., 551m. 156n., 302n., Sr zit. 3300, Hadrian, emperor, 54, 58, 59, 60, 97n., 100, 2053 rescript, 59, 204; letter preserved by Vopiscus, 183 Hahn, 153n., 317n., 340n., 345n., 347n., 395n., 456n.; 460n., 463n., 464n., 525n., 56in. Halcombe (T. R.), article by, 435n. Hammond on Liturgies, 219n., 235n. ey wet een ae > - oe ee ef Ce ig ee en See eh eh ee INDEX. Hanmer (Meredith), 461 and n. Hannibal, 288, 392, 418 Harklensian Version, 547 Harnack, 66n., 78n., 79n., IOI, P5045" 1270.5. 139.5: /145n. 157n., 161n., 162n., 168n. 1720.5 87 4ns, 257 5n.5. 0176n. 277s 210N., 02590... 268n: 299n., 302n., 313n., 316n. 330n., 355n-, 397N., 403n. 4o6n., 445n., 452n., 453n. 4540., 455n., 456n., 458n. 459n., 460n., 462n., 464n., 466n., 470n., 47In., 472n., 474n., 476, 477, 496n., 499n., 50In., 502n., 504n., 506n., megn. peSLINs; =. 514... 5250., 540n. Harris (Prof. Rendel), 73n., 102n., 205, 225n., 263n. harvest homes, 613 Harvey, 123n., 126n. Hastings’ Déctzonary of Bible, 11n., 156n., 212n.; 246n., 547n., Nat Sel Ae ON NS te 5550. Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 299n.,403n., 453n., 4572-5 506n., 553n., 558n., -561n 56In. Hatch (Dr.), 188n., 190n., 217n., 226n., 272n. Hausrath, I1n., 19n., 2In., 23n.,; 24n., 26n. Healey, Valerian Persecution, 80n. hearers, order of penitents, 580 Hebdomad, 591-2 Hebert, Lora’s Supper, 232n., 234n. Hebrews, 15, 33 and n., 39 ; Epistle to; 7, 96n., 97n., 100, 108n., 130n., 249; Gospel according to, 142; religion of, 2, 123 Flebrews, Biblical History of, 2n. Hecate, goddess, 355 Hecebolius, rhetorician; 355, 360n., 371 Hefele, 46n., 167n., 262n., 292n., 30In., 303n., 304n., 305n., 312n., 315n., 318, 319n., 333n., 335n-, 3370., 339n., 342n., 343n-, 344n., 345n., 346n., 377n., 378n., 379n., 390n., 41In., 448n., 449n., 456n., 498n., 506n., 521n., 527n. Hegesippus, 13n., 32, 53, 145, 250n. Heinischen, 146n. 631 Helena, mother of Constantine, 84n., 316n., 321, 323-4, 582-3 Helena, wife of Julian, 357 Heliodorus, 7n. Heliogabalus, 74, 184 Heliopolis, 372 Helladius, priest of Zeus, 407 Hellenism, 7, 122, 157, 180-1, 186—8, 201, 203, 205, 355, 362, 364, 373, 404, 419-20 Hellenistic Jews, 33 and n., 34, 35, 127n. ; Helpidius, rhetorician, 409, 410 Evwors, 457, 464, 469 Henoticon, 538 Henson, Canon, 216n. Heraclas, 165, 168, 226, 272, 275 Heracleon, Valentinian Gnostic, 96n., 137, 144, 595 Herculaneum, 239 Heresy a crime, 401-2, 410—I2 Herford, Zalmud and Midrash, 142n. Hermas, Shepherd of, 101, 104, 109, 118, 229, 252-3, 257n. Hermippus, 5n. hermits, 585 Hero, Pseudo-Ignatius’ epistle to, 113 Herod Agrippa I., 16n., 31, 35, 6 36n. Herod Agrippa II., 16n., 247 Herod Antipas, 22, 35 Herod the Great, 10, 16—22, 24, 35» 36, 90, 281 Herod, irenarch of Smyrna, 61 Herodias, 22, 35, 449 heroism of Christians, 81 Heros of Arles, 505, 520 Hesiod, 186, 368 hetatriat, 57, 217 Heurtley, 153n., 395n. Hexapla, 276-7 Hezekiah, a brigand, 17 Hieracas, 168 Hierapolis, 116, 118 ; daughters at, 116, 117 Hierocles, Neo-Platonist, 86, 196, 200, 202 Hieronymus, see JEROME Hilary of Poictiers, 168n., 337, 342n., 344n., 345n., 346n., ora? ; Hilary, bp. of Arles, 532-3, 562 Hilary, deacon, 536 Philip’s 632 Hilgenfeld, 97n., 101, 114 Himerius, sophist, 381 Himerius, bp. of Tarragona, 520-1 Hippolytus, a -» 64, 105, 129n., 135, 136, 137, 138n., 142n,, 148 and n., 168, P7In., 172, 174, 244n., 255—9, 591, 598, 615. See PHILOSOPHUMENA Hodgkin (Dr.), 380n., 392n., 394n., 399n., 410n., 412n., 414n., 415n., 423n., 425n., 43In., 439n., 449n., 450n., 468n., 512n., 514n., 523n. Holme, 506n., 508n., 517n., 561n. Holy Places, 323-4, 433; 581—3 Holy Spirit, doctrine of, 171, 173-4, 387, 390, 402-3, 544, 560 ; epiclests of in Eucharist, 577; in Gnostic system, 589, 591, 593 Homer, 186, 357, 368, 421; allegorized, 127, 272 Homilies, Clementine, 95, 143 ee 339) 344, 347, 35% 375; 3 Homoiousians, 344; see also SEMI- ARIANS homoiousion, 344n., 345 and n., 397n. Homoousians, 344, 347 homoousion, 163, 167-8, 172, 312—16, 327, 331, 336, 3375 341, 343, 344n., 345 and n., 348, 377, 388, 397N., 400, 402 Honoratus of Lerinum, 562 Honorius, emperor, 430, 434-5, 479; 498, 501, 522, 523—5; 527 Hooker, 397n., 473n. Hope, Christian, in catacombs, 605 Hormuzd, king of Persia, 150 Hort (Prof.), 32n., 34n., 37n., 40n., g5n.,. 10on, § Eh.) 0m, 132n., I42n., 144n., 146n., 147n., 210n., 314n., 389n., 395n.- Horus, or Stauros, 593, 594, 595 Hosius of Cordova, 288, 304, 313, sp 338, 3390, 343, 345n. 34 hospitals, 581 hospitality, 102, 221 Hsi (Pastor), 241n. Human nature, doctrine of, 175 Huns, 468, 469, 479, 534 Hyginus, bp. of Rome, 138 INDEX, Hymenaeus, 132 hymns, 424 Hypatia, 270, 439 and n., 465 ahd n. Hyperion, 184 hypostasis, 160, 163, 171, 298, 300, 310, 313n., 336, 348n., 377, 386, 473 Hyrcanus (John) I., 8, 10, 16 Hyrcanus (John) II., 10, 16, 17 Ialdabaoth, 589-90 Ibas, bp. of pop 467, 469, 471-2, 473, 546-7 : Iberians, 554, 55 - -6, 565 iconoclasm, 405—8 iconoclastic controversy, 321 zconostasts, 575 Idatius, Spanish bishop, 410, 413 idolatry, attitude of Christians towards, 51, 237, 238, 240 Ignatius, bp. of Antioch, 40, 54, 57-8, 96n., 101, I1O—15, 172, 190n., 209n., 220, 227n., 244n., 250-1 Ignatian controversy, I12—15 Ignatian Letters, 58 and nn., 101, 112-13, 145, 268; recensions, 113-14 Illingworth, 1§7n., 209n., 302n. Illyricum, 84, 90, 295, 521, 528, 531, 559 Imaun, Manichaean, 151 immersion at baptism, 576 immorality of heretics, 132-3 Incarnation, doctrine of, 156, 158, 17%, 172-3, 312, 391, 402, 403, 451—78, 537; denied by Gnostics, 126, 128, 131, 132, 452 India, 126, 127, 181 Innocent I., 462, 505, 518, 52I—5 Innocent III., 572 Innocents, massacre of, 21 Inquisition, 431 inquisitors, 412n. inscriptions in catacombs, 602—4, 610—12, 614—16 Instantius, 409, 410, 411, 412 Invention of the Cross, 324 Ireland, 561—4, 565, 566 Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons, 40, 60, 64, 67n., 96n., 104, 105, 116, 117, 118, 119, I20, I2in., 129n., 135, 136 and n., 138, 142n., INDEX, Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons (continued); 145, 146, 147, 148, 172, 173, 176 and n., 177, 218n., 221n., 231n., 24In., 246, 251, 253, 276, 312, 452n., 459, 521, 591n., 592n. Isaac, 143; in catacombs, 608 Isabella of Spain, 431 Isaiah, book of, 3, 6n., 173 Isapostolus, Constantine called, 326 Isdegerd I., 550 Isdegerd II., 554 Ishmael, high-priest, 23 Isidore, an Alexandrian, 441 Isis, 136, 182, 183n., 184n. Israelites, 3, 4, 10, 14, 33n. ‘israels’, 295 Italy, 335, 416, 505, 507, 534, 540, 558, 505 Ithacius, Spanish bishop, 410, 411, 413 Izeds, 123 Jacob, 143 Jamblichus, 200, 202, 362 James (St.), 30n.,. 31-2, 37,’ 60, 94, 95, 103, 106, 109, I17, 134, 142, 143, 214, 245, 259; Epistle of, 11, 31n., 32n., 94, g5n., 96n., 108n.; his chair, 582 James, brother of John, 36 James (St.), of Nisibis, 544-5, 550 Jansenists, 253 Jenkins (Canon), 389n. Jeremiah, 3 Jericho, 18, 21 Jerome, 7n., 42, 71n., 97, 105, 142n., 192n., 204, 227n., 271, 296n., 320, 346n., 349, 394n., 410, 415, 420, 421, 445, 448, 480—90, 504-5, 512, 514, 515, 522, 529, 571, 583, 587, 598 Jerusalem, 4, 6, 17, 23, 29, 35, 59, 269, 323-4, 3635 siege of, 99; destruction of, 40, 100, 250n. ; church of, 30—35, 39, 94, 212, 214, 232, 319, 488, 568; Holy Places, 323-4, 582-3; Jerome at, 483; council of, see COUNCILS Jerusalem Codex, 107 11pn., 375n., 633 Jesuits, 253 Jesus Christ, 15, 22, 24, 25—28, 29, 199; honoured by Alex- ander Severus, 74 ; represented in catacombs, 607 Jesus, Gnostic views of, 142, 452, 599; 592, 593, 594 . Fesus impatibilis, 151 Fesus patsbtles, 150 Jews, 3—14, 18—24, 30, 33 and D., 34, 37, 45, 46, 48, 51, 58, 59, 61, 67n., 72, 122-3, 183, 231In., 276, 362, 427 Jewish Christians, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 60, 94, 99, IOI, 103, 118, 143 Joannites, 449 Johannine literature, 132, 134 John (St.), 11n., 32n., 37, 40, 42, 50, 51 and n., 60, 112, 116, 117, I19, 120, 142, 146, 157; 178, 220, 251 Gospel of, 40, 94, 96n., 120, 132Nn., 137, 144, 157, 232, 373, 591, 592 — Ist Epistle of, 96n., 118, 132n. —— 2nd and 3rd Epistles of, 96n., 132n. —— Acts of, 144n. See APOCALYPSE John the Baptist, 25-6, 31, 144; disciples of, 228n. ; festival of, 580 ; eve, 584; his head, 582 John the Presbyter, 117, 178 John, bp. of Jerusalem, 488, 504, 928 John, first bp. of Iberia, 554 John III., pope, 599 John (St.), of Damascus, 205 John, bp. of Antioch, 463, 465, 466, 470, 546 be on oe of, 486; in catacombs, 0. Jonathan, priest-king, 9-10 Joppa, 34 : Jordan, river-god representation of in catacombs, 602 Joseph (St.), in catacombs, 609 Joseph, patriarch of Armenia, 554 Josephus, 5n., 6n., 7n., II, I3n., 16n., £7n., 100, sSoa) 220... 23n., 26, 32n., 36n., 125, 247, 250n. Josiah, 36n. 634 Journal of Theological Studies, 215n., 543n. Jovian, emperor, 376, 549-59, 554 Jovinian, monk, 486-7 Jovinus, master of horse, 361 Subilees, Book of, 6n., 553 Judaea, 17, 22, 35, 52n.$ pro- curators, 23 Judaism, 3, 5) 7, 10—14, 34, 58, 59, 93> 94, 100, I15n., 122, 127, 130N., 175, 270, 373, 595 Judaizing Christians, 36, 39, 94, 131, 134, 142, 557 Judaizing Gnosticism, 142 Judas of Galilee, 23, 27 Judas Iscariot, 30, 590 Judas the Maccabee, 7, 9, 10 Jude, the Lord’s brother, descend- ants of, 53; Epistle of, 8n., g6n., 97N., 133 Julia Domna, 197 Julia, daughter of Drusus, 248-9 Julian, emperor, 91, 180, 181, 196, 200, 333, 349, 351—74, 375, 376, 379, 381, 352, 404, 405, 417, 420, 427, 440, 480, 497, 542, 549, 554, 573 Julian (Didius), emperor, 72 Julian of Cos, 536 Julian of Eclanum, 506, 510, 511, 530 Julius, bp. of Rome, 334-5, 339, 341, 388, 587 Julius II. rebuilds St. Peter’s, 575 Junias, 3on. Jupiter Pluvius, 69 Justin Martyr, 65-6, 67n., 96n., 142n., 144, 146, 154, 158—60, 161, 173, 175, 177, 185, 189, 196, 203, 204n., 219, 233, 241n., 276; see APOLOGISTS Justina, empress, 392, 418, 422—6, 432 Justinian, 195, 546 Juvenal, 270n. Juventinus, a soldier, 371 Kabbala, 124-5, 135, 589, 593 Kaye (Bp.), 48n., 159n., 160n., 174n. King, Guostics and their Remains, I24n., 125n., 137N,, 150n., i51n., 152n., 184n,, 185n. INDEX. Kingdom of Heaven, 8, 13, 15, r 25—7 39s 53, 209 Kingsley, 439n. kiss of peace, 235, 236, 577 kneelers, order of penitents, 580 Knight (Dr.), 130n. Kobad, 556 Korah, 223 Koré, 187 Krebs (Dr.), 78n. Kiinstle, 412n. . Kurtz, Church History, 165n., 166n., 233n., 242n. 151n., 1670.) 4/1730., Labarum, 92 and n., 281-2 Lactantius, 44n., 85, 87n., 90 and n., 174, 204, 208, 239n., 242n., 281 and n., 283n., 288, 326 laity, 210, 236 Lampridius, 185n. lamps in catacombs, 605, 606 Lampsacus, synod of, see SYNODS Lanciani, 599 Langlois, 553n. lanterns, 575 Laodiceans, Epistle to, 141 lapst, 259, 261, 267, 318 Lararium, 74 Lateran Palace, 322, 323, 519, 527 Latin church, 327 ‘ Latrocinium,’ see COUNCILS Latronianus, Priscillianist poet, 412 Laurence (St.), 615 Laurence (Abp.), 558n. Law, Roman, 14, 44-5, 49, 217n., 405 Law of Moses, 3, 10, 11, 12, 36, 37s 99, 125, 133, 139, 362 Laws: of Constantine, 284—7; of Julian, 365-6; of Theodosius, 398-9, 401, 408 Lazarus, his grave, 583 Lazarus of Aix, 505, 526 Le Blant, 50n., 68n. Lecky, 186n., I9In., 192n., 194n., 200n., 20In, Leitzmann, 453n. Lent, 398n., 584 Leo I., pope, 468, 471, 472—4, 480, 518, 520, 529—40, 572 Tome of, 471, 473, 474, 536—8 Leonides, father of Origen, 72, 273-4 re thle tee Neal in hai INDEX. Leontius of Caesarea, 553 Leontius, bp. of Ancyra, 443 Leontopolis, temple at, 6 Lerinum, monastery of, 562 letter of martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, 68, 221 letters of commendation, 221-2 Levites, 223 Lias (Rev. J. J.), 227n., 395n. Libanius, sophist, 355, 356, 360, _ 373» 449, 578 “ibellatict, 78 libelli, 78n., 267 Liberals, 344 Liberian Catalogue, 105 Liberius, bp. of Rome, 105, 341, 342-3, 346 and n., 376, 379 Libius Severus, 540-1 Licinius, emperor, 90, 91, 92, 283, a 288, 295-6, 297, 303. Licinius, Caesar, 321 Liddon, (Canon), 156n. lighting of lamps, 580 Lightfoot (Bp.), 13n., 37n., 38n., 42n., 44n., 52 and n., 54n., 57n., 60n., 61n., 62n., 65n., .66n., 68n., 69n., 70, 95n., g7n., 103, 104, 105n., 106, 1o7n., 108n., 109n., 110 and nn., IfIn., 112 and n., 113n., I14n,, 115 and n., 116n., 118, 120, 125n., 126, 129, 146n., Pacms 1 72h, 190n., “192n., aan, *210n,, 213n.,° 216n., 217n., 220n., 233, 234, 244n., 245n., 246n., 247, 248n., 250n., 258, 271n., 307, 332n. Linus, 105, 246 literae communicatoriae, 222 literalism, 277-8 Liturgy, 233, 577; the ‘Clementine’, 219, 236; at Jerusalem, 577 Livy, 421 Aoylwy xuptaxdv eéfjynots, treatise by Papias, 116 Logos, doctrine of, 40, 94, 155-6, 157—67, 171, 173, 197, 301, 310, 312, 342n., 391, 452—78 Aéyos é\n67s, Celsus’ work, 198 Loigaire, 561 London, 293 Long (G.), 70n. Lord’s Prayer, 230; said thrice a day, 102 Lucan, poet, 183n., 193 635 Lucian, martyr of Antioch, 92, 168, 277 and n., 298 and n., 302, 336 ee: Lucian, chamberlain of Diocletian, 5 Lucian, satirist, 188, 190-1, 240n. Lucianists, 332 Lucifer, bp. of Calaris, 343, 378 Lucilla, 292 Lucina, crypt of, 249 Lucius, bp. of Rome, 262 Lucretius, 189 and n. ludt saeculares, 75, 282 Luke (St.), 13n., 37, 39, 40; writings of, 96n., 140-1, 142 ; see ACTS Lumby (Prof.), 395n. Lutetia Parisiorum, 357 Luther, 476 Lydda, 34, 505, 525 Lyons and Vienne, martyrs of, 67-8, 70, 76, 78, 221, 225 Macarius, bp. of Jerusalem, 324 Macarius, presbyter, 334-5 Macarius, proconsul of Africa, 497 Maccabees, 3n., 7—I0, 19; books of, 7n., 558; commemorated, 8 ie) MacCarthy, Annals of Ulster, 2570. Macedonia, 38, 295 Macedonius, official, 411 Macedonius, heretic, 349, 390, 394 Macedonianism, 390, 399n., 401 Macrianus, 79 Macrina, grandmother of St. Basil, 81 Nicene (St.), sister of St. Basil, 81 Macrobius, 20n., 182n., 184 ‘Macrostich’ creed, 340 Madaura, persecution at, 66 Mafia, 50n. Magi in catacombs, 607, 608 Magians, I51 magic, 79 Magnentius, usurper, 341, 342, 353, 354 Magnesia, III Magnesians, Ignatius writes to, III Mahaffy, 5n., 182n., 269n. Majorian, 540 Majorinus, rival bp. of Carthage, 292, 293 Malan (S. C.), St. Gregory, 553n. 636 Malcolm, History of Persia, §5§2n. Mamaea, 74 Mamertinus, orator and poet, 359, 360 Man: First, 159, 589 ; Second, 589 Mandaeans, 150 Manes, 124, 149-50, I5I, 152 Manichaeans, 149—52, 399n., 401, 409, 412n., 498, 548; Augus- tine, 135, 151, 491—3, 511 Mansel (Dean), 137n., I4I, 143, 144n., 146n., 147, 149n., 570n. Marcella, 512 Marcellina, lady Gnostic, 252 Marcellina, sister of St. Ambrose, 425 Marcellinus, bp. of Rome, 262 Marcellinus, martyr, 593; cata- comb of, 610, 615 Marcellinus, proconsul of Africa, 501 Marcellus of Ancyra, 172, 306, 313, 317, 335, 336-7, 338-9, 349, 341, 3870. — Marcellus of Campania, 342 Marcellus, pope, 601In. Marchi (Padre), 599 Marcia, 71 te emperor, 469, 472, 473, 535-6, 541 Marcion, 62, 96n., I2I, 133, 134, 136, 137—4I, 142, 143, 144, 146, 252 Marcionites, 134, 543 Marcomannic war, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71 Marcus, first Gentile bp. of Aelia, 60 Marcus, a Priscillianist, 409 Marcus, a Valentinian, 137, 595 Mardia, battle of, 295 Mardonius, tutor of Julian, 352 Mareotic commission, 388 Mareotis, Lake, 270 Mariamne, wife of Herod, 16n., 17, 18, 19, 20, 36 Mariamne, daughter of Simon, 22 Marinus, bp. of Arles, 293 Maris of Hardaschir, 546 Mark (St.), 31, 36, 42, 246n., 271, 569; Gospel of, 96n., 117, 134, 246n. Mark of Arethusa, 347n., 352, 366 marriage, 149, 225, 237-8, 256, 286, 543, 5573 of clergy, 573 Marsa, 444 INDEX. Marseilles, 90, 526 Meu ae Brigandage d Ephese, 472 Martin (St. 2: bp. of Tours, 408— 413, 562 Martinmas, 413 martyrdom, 9, 194, 240, 307-8 martyrology, 79, 240 martyrs honoured, 140, 240, 267, 290-1 Marucchi, 599 Maruthas of Mesopotamia, 550 Mary, the Blessed Virgin, 29, 112, 171, 458, 459, 464, 528, 539, 557, 608, 615 Mary, mother of M ark, 31 Mary of Cassobola, or, 112n., 113 Mason (Canon), 56n., 80n., 84n., 85n,, 86n., 87n., 88n., 9on., gin., 15in.,. 2030, eden... 290n., 29In. Maternus of Cologne, 292 Mattathias, 7, 23n. Matthew (St.), 42, 117, 118, 134; Gospel of, 39, 96n., 117, 118, 142 Matthias (St.), election of, 29-30, 223 ; Gospel of, 14q4n. Mattidia, legendary mother of Clement of Rome, 106-7 Maturus, martyr, 68 Maxentius, 84n., 88, 89, 90, 92, . 280, 282, 283, 284, 290 Maximian, emperor, 84, 88, 89, 90, 283, 290 Maximian, Donatist deacon, 498 Maximianists, 498 Maximilla, Montanist prophetess, 225 Maximin the Thracian, 75, 258 Maximin Daza, 86n., 88, 89, 90, gI-2, 283, 295 Maximus, philosopher, 355, 360, 3 - Maximus (Magnus), usurper, 409, 41I—13, 418, 423, 426-7, 432 Maximus, senator, 534, 540 Maximus, soldier, 371 Mayor eh ack Joseph B.), 32n., g5n. McGiffert (De), 64n., 86n., 332n. Melania, 485n. Melchiades or Miltiades, pope, 293 Melchisedek, an angel, 169 Melchizedek, priest-king, 223n, F . : . : ¥ : INDEX. Meletian schism, 318-19, 320 Meletius, bp. of Antioch, 378, 380n., 387, 392, 395-6, 403, 440 Melitene, quarters of twelfth legion, 69, 70 Melito of Sardis, 54, 59n., 60, 65n., 66 Memnon of Ephesus, 463 Memphis, 127, 409 Memra, 94, 155 Menaea, 110 Menelaus, 6 Mensurius, bp. of Carthage, 290-1 Mercury in catacombs, 602 Meropius, 556 igs ee 318, 542, 547, 548, 5 Mesrobes, 555 Messalina, 248 Messiah, 14, 27, 197 Messianic hopes, 2, 7—10, 15, 19, 21 Messianic kingdom, 15, 21, 30, 178 Metatron, 125 Methodius of Tyre, 168 Metrodorus, Marcionite martyr, 62 Milan, 283, 355-6, 357, 409, 410, 413, 416, 418, 422—7, 451, 518, 561 ; see EDICTS, SYNODS Miletus, St. Paul at, 131 Mill (J. S.), 139n. Millenarianism, 117, 118, 177-8 Milman (Dean), 47n., 53n., 58n., 74n., 79n., 85n., 114, 151n., 152n., 156n., 183n., 210n., 242n., 254n., 290n., 316n., 317n., 389n., 500n., 506n., 527N., 530n-, 533n-, §39n., 555n- Miltheies or Melchiades, pope, 293 Milton on Ignatian Epistles, 113 Milvian Bridge, battle of, 92, 282 Minerva, 74 Minim, 142n. Minucius Felix, Apologist, 65n., 66, 92n., 208, 24In. miracles, belief in, 241 and nn., 242, 413, 425, 500n. Miroclus, bp. of Milan, 293n. Mishna, 10 Misopogon, 352, 3530.5 369n., 371 Missa Catechumenorum, 236 Mithras, worship of, 184-5, 372) 407 Moberly, 216n., 310n. 3572: 5 637 Modestus, praefect, 380, 384 Moesia, 559 Mohl (M. Jules), 107 Mommsen, 547n. Monad, 143, 164 Monarchianism, 163—72, 254, 26% monasticism, 152, 203, 270, 382, 393 495, 408, 427, 445, 446-7, 468, 481, 485, 508, 564, 565, 581, 585—8 monks, 585—8; at councils, 574 Monnica, mother of St. Augustine, 491, 495, 496, 613 Monophysites, 277, 473, 474s 477, 547, 566 Monotheism, 2, 182, 300 Montanists, 101, 169, 170, 174, 177; 178, 221, 224-5, 233, 238, 254, 263, 264, 288 Montanus, 224 Montius, quaestor, 354 Morinus, 227n. Morrison, Austory of the Jews, 21n.}3 St. Bastl and his Rule, 581n. mosaics at Ravenna, 602, 605, 607. 609; at Rome, 529; at Jeru- salem, 576 Mosaism, II, 34 Moses, 5, 8n., 25, 33, 143, 270, 608 Moses da Leon, 124 Moses of Chorene, 556n. Mosheim, 133 mourners, penitential order, 579 Mozley (Prof.), 151n. Muratorian fragment, 96n., 116n., 144n., 145, 244n. Mursa, battle of, 341 Mysia, 38 Mysteries: Hellenic, 59, 187-8, 190, 355, 3573 Christian, 230 myths, ancient, 136 Naaseni, see OPHITES Naples, catacombs at, 597 Narbonne, 526 Narses, Persian king, 550n. narthex, 580 natalitta of martyrs, 601, 611, 613, 614 Nathan (Rabbi), 10 Natures in Christ, 451—78, 546 Nazaraeans, 142n. Neale, 463n. 638 Neander, 30n., 38n., 42n., 45n., $2n,,, 60, 6$0,5°°92,-975u-, 76n., 77N-, 79n-, 134, 141, 162n., 163n., 167n., 168n., 173n. 174, %175n., 176n., 17Sn., 207h);. 24in.,2670., 269n., 282, 342n., 39In., 601n. Nectarius, bp. of Constantinople, 396, 400-1, 441 Nehemiah, 3 Neo-Platonism, 86, 91, 162, 1869, 195—203, 300, 362, 419, 436 Nephesh, 125 Nepos, bp. of Arsinoe, 177-8 Nepos (Julius), 541 Nereus, Roman martyr, 247n., 598, 611 Nero, 46n., 48, 50-1, 64, 183n., 197, 242, 246, 249 Nerva, 53, 195, 197 Nestabus, martyr, 372 Nestorianism, 277, 458-9, 461—7, 473, 474; 528, 537> 545-5, 547; 551-2, 565, 566 Nestorius, 391, 451, 466-7, 468, 46 458, 461—4, 469, 470, 528, Neumann, 72n. Nevitta, consul, 359, 360 Newman (Cardinal), 304n., 330n., 332n., 346n., 363n., 373M, 389n., 465n. New Testament, 24, 39, 40, 58, 93—-7, 107, 109, 127, 136, 140, I51, 199, 202, 214, 216, 232, 271, 373, 482, 547, 5583 scenes in catacombs, 607-8; see CANON Nicaea, council of, see COUNCILS Nicanor, 7n. Nicé, Creed of, see CREEDS Nicene Creed, see CREEDS Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; Library of, 64n., 66n., 8on., $6n., 9° 1630.4) "3640, 38 Gai, 334n., 347n., 374n., 378n., 381ns, 382m, 3630.) ~384n., 388n., 394n., 551n. Nicephorus, patriarch of Constan- tinople, 101 Nicetas of Remisiana, 424n. Nicetes, 61 Nicholas I., pope, 337n. Nicolaitans, 133 Nicolaus the deacon, 33 INDEX. Nicomachus Flavianus, 419, 420 Nicomedia, 83, 87, 355; proposed council at, 347n. Nina (St.), 555-6 Ninian, 564 Nirvana, 126 Nisibis, 467, 542, 544, 545, 5495 550n. Nitrian desert, 114, 446 Noah, 143; in catacombs, 606, 608 Noetus, 141, 164, 170 Noldeke, 468n. Northcote and Brownton, Subter- ranean Rome, 240n, Not-Being, 591 Nods, 162, 163, 593 Novatian, 168, 172, 174, 226, 261, 262, 265n., 268, 318 Novatianism, 172, 224,226, 259—62, 268, 399n., 400-1 Novatus, 261, 262, 266—8, 291 Nubians, 564 Numenius, 196, 197n. Numerian, emperor, 48, 74, 82 Numidia, 263 Oak (the), synod at, 448, 449, 522 Oceanus in catacombs, 602 Octavian, Augustus, 18, 20, 22, 48, 70, 83, 326, 419 Odenatus, husband of Zenobia, 167 Odin, 559 Odovacar, Gothic chieftain, 541 Odyssey, 272, 436 oecumenical, 304, 319 Oehler, 155n. offerings at Eucharist, 235 ogdoad, 593 oil at baptism; 576 Old Testament, 2, 8, 127, 136, 138-9, 140, 151, 154, 155, 159, 160n., 199, 202, 208, 236, 373, 482, 493, 508, 515, 547, 558, 560n., 590; scenes in cata- combs, 608 Olybrius, consul, 415 Olybrius, emperor, 541 Olympias, 475, 573 Olympius, philosopher, 407 omens, 85 On, 127 Onesimus, bp. of Ephesus, 111 Onias, 6 ae oe a INDEX, Onkelos, 155 Ophites, 134, 135-6, 589-90 Optatus of Melevis, 497, Soin. optim, 367 oraniz, in catacombs, 608 Orders, indelibility of, 259 ; Roman Catholic, 227 Ordination, 226—8, 259-60, 482, _ 521-2, 609n. Origen, 46, 47n., 72, 75> 79, 77, 97, 99, 103, 142n., 144, 148, 154, 162-3, 164, 165, 168, 170n., I7I—5, 178, 179, 184, 185n., 189, 198, 200, 203, 224, 226, 239n., 24In., 246n., 253, 271, 273—7, 302, 308, 313n., 336, 445—8, 452n., 458n., _ 475, 482, 486, 487—9, 490 Origenists, 168, 438, 445—8, 456, _ 474, 487—9, 522 origin of evil, 127-8 Original Sin, doctrine of, 175, 504—I1 Ormuzd, 123, 184, 549 Orosius, 406n., 504, 512n., 524 Orpheus, 5, 74; in catacombs, 602 Osiris, 136, 183n. Ostrogoths, 559 Ottley, 478 ees ere» 313n., 347, 348, 377, 3 Owen (Rev. John), 115n. Ozroene, 542 Pachomius, 587 Paganism, 323, 327, 404—8, 413—16, 430, 513, 524, 583 ~aganus, 406 and n. Palestine, 2—34, 35-6, 59, 274, 276, 382, 485, 503, 5255 547 Palestinian-Syriac Version, 547 Palladium, 74 Palladius, biographer, 334n., 441n., 442n., 447n. Palladius, deacon, 563, 564, 566 palm branch, emblem, 606 Pamphilus, 168, 277 Panaetius of Rhodes, 191n. fanarion of Epiphanius, 446 Pantaenus, 161, 271 Pantheism, 154, 157, 170 papal decrees, 521 Faphnutius, bishop, 320, 573 35 I—74, 417—20, 639 Papias, bp. of Hierapolis, 96n., 116—18, 177, 178, 246n. parabolanz, 581 Paraclete: Manichaean, 151; Mon- tanist doctrine of, 174, 225 parishes, 119 Parissot (Dom), 551 Parker (Abp.) 308 Parmenian, 497, 499 Parry (Dr. St. John), 32n., gsn. Parseeism, 150 Parthians, 17, 548, 552 Paschal controversy, see EASTER Paschasinus, bp. of Lilybaeum, 473 Pass (H. L.), 551n. Pastoral Epistles, 96n., 131, 132n., 141, 213, 214, 217, 318, 221n., 573 pastors, 214 Patmos, 119 patriarchates, 568—7o Patricius, father of St. Augustine, 491 Patrick (St.), 561—4, 566 Patripassian doctrine, 141,164, 165, 170, 340n. Patroclus, bp, of Arles, 526 Paul (St.), 14, 30n., 31—42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 93—5, 99, 103—I0, 116, 128—131, 139—43, 178, 192, 202, 203, 204, 212—I5, 230, 232, 233-4, 244—6, 250, 285, 586, 592; Epistles of, 32, 38, 39) 51,94, 95, 96n., 103, E15, Li 555,129, 00. 13355 140, I5I, 245, 593, 613, 615; his . body, 598, 611; festival of, 580 Paul I., pope, 599 Paul, bp. of Emesa, 465 Paul of Samosata, 81, 164, 166-7, 298n., 312, 313n., 320, 337, 342n., 346n. Paul, bp. of Constantinople, 334, 399, 400 5 Paul, surnamed ‘the Chain’, 360 Paul the Hermit, 482 Paula, ascetic, 410, 482-3, 485, 486 Paulicians, 151 Paulina, 483 Paulinian, Jerome’s brother, 482, 488 Paulinus, bp. of Antioch, 378, 387, 395-6, 482 Paulinus, biographer of St. Ambrose, 416n., 421, 504 Paulinus (St.) of Nola, 420, 503, 583 640 peacock, emblem, 606 Pearson (Bp.) on Ignatius, 114, 115 Pelagius, 502—11, 525-6 Pelagianism, 458, 461, 462, 474, oe, 499, §02—IT, 525-6, 539 3 penance, 237, 256, 268n., 423, 579-80 Pentateuch, IIn. Pentecost, 30; Christian festival, 580 Peratae, 136 Peregrinus Proteus, 188, 190-1 wept apx@v, Origen’s, 483 Peripatetics, 158 Perpetua, martyr, 72-3, 225, 263. See ACTS Perry, Second Councel of Ephesus, 472n. persecution: 44—46, 76, 220, 289, 431, 446, 499, 500; at Jeru- salem, 33, 353 under Nero, 50-1 ; under Domitian, 51—3 ; under Trajan, 54—8; under Hadrian, 59 ; under Antoninus Pius, 60—2; under Marcus Aurelius, 65—8 ; at Madaura and Scillium, 66; at Lyons and Vienne, 67-8, 76; under Septimius Severus, 72-3, 264, 271, 2743 under Maximin the Thracian, 75, 258, 275; under Decius, 62, 76—9, 257, 261, 268; under Valerian, 79-80, 576; under Diocletian, 86—8, 196, 277, 279, 280, 289, 305, 381, 497; under Galerius, 89, 280; under Maximin Daza, gi-2; of the Priscillianists, 408—13 Persephone, 187 Persia, 42, 123, 133, 149-50, 184, 394, 373) 467, 548—52, 554) 555) 556, 505 persona, 377, 454 Pertinax, emperor, 72 Pescennius Niger, 72 Peshitta, 547 pestilence, 65, 81 Petavius, 603 Peter (St.), 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37; 41-2, 50, 93, 95, 103, 105— LIO, 117, 12639434, 143, 202, 244—6, 250, 260, 398, 538, 586, 592; Ist Epistle of, 30, INDEX. Peter (St.) continued: — g6n., 118, 246; 2nd Epistle of, g6n., 108n., 132-3 ; Gospel of, 144n.; his body, 598, 611; his chair, 422; festival of, 580; in catacombs, 605, 615 Peter, bp. of Alexandria, 318, 392, 397n., 398 Petilian, Donatist, 498-9, 500 Pharisaic Christians, 31, 36, 37, 129 Pharisees, 10, II-12, 16, 20-1, 23, 25, 31 Pheroras, 20 Philadelphia, 111 Philadelphians, Ignatius to, 112 Philagrius, praefect, 334 Philemon, Epistle to, 239 Philetus, 132 Philip the Apostle, 116 and n., 117 Philip the deacon, 33, 34, 116 and N., 213, 228n. Philip the Arabian, emperor, 75 Philip, son of Herod the Great, 22 Philip, tetrarch of Iturea, 21, 22, 27 Philip II. of Spain, 90, 281 Philippi, 38, 103, 112; church of, ae oem : Philippians, St. Paul’s Epistle to, 39, 44, 96n., 103, 106, 244; Polycarp’s Epistle to, t19; Pseudo-Ignatius to, 113 Philippopolis, synod of, 339 Philo, 13n., 23n., 94, 99, 125, 127, 155-6, 1575 161, 196, 273) 399, 334n. Philocatta of Origen, 382 Philocrates, 5 Philomelium, church of, 60, 119 philosophers, 94, 153-9, 181, 183-9, 60 3 Philosophumena, 148, 169, 171, 257 philosophy: Greek, 14, 126, 127, 135, 153, 159, 181-2, 189, 200, 269; Indian, 126, 127 Philostorgius, Arian historian, 363n., 382n., 560n, Philostratus, 197 Philoxenian version, 547 Philoxenus, presbyter of Rome, 339n. Phoebadius of Agen, 348 Phoebe, deaconess, 215 Phoebus, 184 phoenix, in catacombs, 606 INDEX. Photinus of Sirmium, 340, 341-2. 344, 346 Phrygia, 38, 40, 116, 224 gvots, 454 Picts, conversion of, 564 pictures in catacombs, 614-15 Pierius, 168 Pilate, 23-4; in catacombs, 605 ; his palace, 582 pilgrimage, 582-3 Pillet (Abbé), 68n., 73n., 217n., 225n., 238n. Pinna, bishop, 80 and n. Pionius, martyr, of Smyrna, 62, 79 Pius, bp. of Rome, 252, 519, 600 Plato, 5, 159, 204, 283, 421, 513, 607—1I0, 591, 595 Platonism, 163, 194, 196, 495, 514 Platonists, 159, 194, 196 Plato-Pythagoreans, 196-7 Plautius (Aulus), 248 Pleroma, 593, 594 Pliny the Elder, describes Essenes, 13n., 125 Pliny the Younger, letter to Trajan, 45, 53n., 54—7, 233 Plotinus, 200, 201, 300, 362, 494 Plumptre (Dr.), 79n., gin. Plutarch, 184n., 194n., 196, 269 Pluto, 187 Pollentia, battle of, 439 Polybius, bp. of Tralles, 111 Polycarp, bp. of Smyrna, 40, 46n., 58, 60—2, 66, 96n., III, 112, 116, 118, 119—21, 146, 177, 221, 251, 611; ‘Martyrdom’ of 610-11 Polycrates of Ephesus, 66, 116 Polyeuctes of Armenia, 79 polytheism, 157, 308, 373 Pompeianus, praefect, 523 Pompeii, 239, 580 Pompey, 17, 184 Pomponia Graecina, 248-9 Pontianus, Roman bishop, 258, 607 Ponticus, martyr, 68 Pontifex Maximus, 282, 362, 363, 392, 404, 416, 417, 616 Pontitianus, 495 Pontius Pilate, 23 Pontus, 30n. poor, care of, 34, 218, 235 popes, personal obscurity, 529 641 Porphyry, 86, 200—3, 300, 362, 373 Potammon, 308 Pothinus, bp. of Lyons, 68 Potitus, British presbyter, 562 praescriptio, 147n. Praetextatus (St.), Catacomb of, 598, 611 Praetextatus, Roman noble, 415, 420 praetorian guard, 72, 244 Praxeas, IOI, 164, 169-70, 174, 221, 254 prayer, 237; for the dead, 612; for the emperor, 219 preaching, 578 predestination, 152, 504—I1I presbyters, 117, 131, 212-13; 214, 218—27, 236, 237, 257, 266, 271, 571, 572 presbyteresses, 573 Prescott, 289n., 431n. Primal Man, see ADAM KADMON Primian, 498 Prisca, Montanist prophetess, 225 Prisca, wife of Diocletian, 44, 84n., 85, 87, 9In., 283 Priscilla, at Corinth, 38 Priscilla (St.), Catacomb of, 244n., 597, 609, 610 Priscillian, 408—13 Priscillianists, 408—13, 531 Priscus (Helvidius), 52n. Proaeresius, sophist, 368, 381 Probinus, consul, 415 Probus, emperor, 82 Probus, nobleman, 415-16, 432 Procopius, usurper, 380 Procula, Priscillianist, 410 Proculus, Christian slave, 72 Proculus, bp. of Narbonne, 526 prophets: Hebrew, 5, 159, 173; Christian, 102, 213, 214, 215, 219 ;. Montanist, 225 proselytes, 13, 25, 29, 34, 72 Frosper, poet, 509 Protasius, martyr, 425-6 Proteus, 197 Proverbs, Book of, 155 Prudentius, poet, 258n., 406n., 421 Psalter, Jerome’s revision, 452 Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles, 112-13 Psyche, in catacombs, 602 Ptochotropheion, 581; of St. Basil, $3 and n. Ptolemy I. (Soter), 182, 270n. ss 642 Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus), 5 Ptolemy ICI. (Euergetes), 182 Ptolemy IV. (Philometor), 5n., 6 Ptolemy VII. (Physcon), 6 Ptolemy, a Valentinian, 137, 146, 595 Pudens, 597 Pulcheria, 432, 468-9, 472, 473; 535-6 purgatory, 178 Puritanism, 12, 112, 225, 253—62, 603, 604, 613 purity of Christian life, 237-8 Pythagoras, 5, 186, 202 Pythagoreans, 158, 196-7 Quadi, invasion of, 65, 69 Quadratus, apologist, 59, 204 Quakers, 225 Quartodecimans, see EASTER Quintus, 60 Quirinus, propraetor of Syria, 23 Rabbis, 3, 19, 22, 24 Rabbulas, bp. of Edessa, 466-7, 545-6 Rainy, 102n. Ramsay (Prof.), 38n., 46n., 50n., 52n., 53n., 56n., 57n., 58n., 65n., 72n., 383n. Ravenna; 523; mosaics at, 580, 583, 584 Rawlinson, I51n., 550n., 552n. 555n. readers, 218, 236, 353n., 355, 570, 572 re-baptism, 268-9 Recognitions, Clementine, 95, 106, 142-3 Redemption, 176; Gnostic views Of, 440, 151, 672 ¢hiwelsus’ views of, 199 ‘Refutation of all the Heresies’, see PHILOSOPHUMENA Regillus (Lake), anniversary of battle of, 320 relics, veneration of, 203, 292, 422, 424-5, 581 religio tllictta, 206 religio lsctta, 81, 9In. Renan (Mons.), 30n., 34, 46n., 67n., 68n., 71, 185n., 189n., 205, 217n., 250n., 270 INDEX, Rendall, 2o1n., 3520.) 3530. +9 355Mey 356n. » 360n., 361n., 362n., 363n., 364n., 366n., 367n., 368n., 369n., 372n., 373n. Renouf, 184n., 346n. rescripts: Hadrian, 59; M. Aurelius, 60; Gallienus, 80; Constantine, 290 ResponstoArchiepiscoporumAngliae, 228n. Restitutus of London, 293 Resurrection, doctrine of, 9, 12, 28, 132, 178-9, 275, 438. See also FUTURE LIFE Reticius, bp. of Autun, 292 Revocatus, martyr, 72 Rhipsime, virgin, 553 Ricimer, 540-1 Ritsch] (O.), 268n. Robertson (Bp.), 2n., 76n., 282n., 315n., 324n., 347N. Robinson ‘(Dean diay Gee Beis 73n., 205, 217A. Rogatists, 498 Rogatus, 498 Rome, 38, 39, 51, 159, 4c 413- 15, 421-2, $1I-12, 518 » 523-4, 575) 596—616 early bishops, 105 church of, 38-9, 40-1, 43-4, 50, 58, 64,93, 107—9, 138, 164, 169, 172, 210n., 215, 216, 224, 226, 234, 24362, 268, 319; 335, 460-1, 465-6, 482—5, 517—49, 568, 582, 614, 615 St. Peter at, 41 Roman procurators, 23 Rome confessors, letters to Cyprian, 7 —— empire, 17, 39, 73-4, 83, 207, 250, 285, 295, 404-5, 540 religion, 74, I —— see, supremacy of, 421, 433, 460, 517—22, 528, 529—40 Romans, St. Paul’s Epistle to, 28n., 38, 93, 95n., 108n., 215, 244, 246; Ignatius’ Epistle to, 111, 1t2 Romulus Augustulus, 479, 541 round churches, 574 Routh, Re/zguzae Sacrae, 85n. Rufinus of Aquileia, 306, 324, 369n., 377n., 445, 480-1, 485n., 487—9, 555, 556-7 Rufinus, minister, 439 INDEX. Rufus (Annius), 23 Rufus, martyr, 112 Ruinart, 113, 373n. Russia, church of, 451 Rusticus (Q. Junius), 65, 189 Sabbath, Jewish, 102, 557 Sabellius, doctrine of, 160, 162, 164-5 and n., 166, 170, 172, 298, 300, 311, 317, 332, 336, 340n., 341 Sacerdos, British presbyter, 293 sacrifices, 584 Sadducees, 10-II, 12, 16, 25, 31, 32 Sakya-Muni, 126 . Sallustius, praefect, 360, 370, 520 Salmon, 118n., 119n. Salome, sister of Herod, 20 Salvianus, bishop, 409, 410 Samael, daemon, 125 Samaria, 34; Samaritans, I1n., 22 Sanctus, deacon and martyr, 67, 68 Sanday, 270n., 334n. Sanday and Headlam, 210n., 246n. Sanhedrin, 17, 33 Sapor, see SHAHPOOR Saracens, 556 Saragossa, synod of, see SYNODS Saras, presbyter, 315 sarcophagi in catacombs, 598, 605 Sardica, council at, 228, 338-9; canons of, 527, 538 Sardinian mines, 71 Sardis, 111 Sasima, Gregory of Nazianzus bishop of, 385, 395 Sassanidae, dynasty of, 548, 552 Satan, 150, 176 Saturday, observance of, 580 Saturninus, proconsul of Syria, 20 Saturninus, martyr, 72 Saul, king, 139, 140 Saul (Sabhall), in Ireland, 563 Sceva, sons of, 131 Schepps, 412n. Scillium (or Scilla) persecution at, 66 and n. Scott (C. A.), 561n. scribes, 3 sculpture in catacombs, 605—10 Scutari, battle at, 296 Scythia, 42, 304 Scythians, 435 Scythianus, 149-50 643 Sebastian (St.), Catacomb of, 599, 611 Secundulus, martyr, 72 Secundus (Pedanius), 285 Secundus, Arian bishop, 303, 307, 315 Secundus, bp. of Tigisis, 292 Secundus, a Valentinian, 137, 595 Secundus, father of Chrysostom 440 Seleucia, see COUNCILS Seleucidae, 5, 9 Seleucus Nicator, 5n. Seleucus (Mt.), battle of, 341 Selwyn (Dr.), 38n. Semi-Arians, 309, 332n., 344, 345, 347, 349, 377-8, 379; 380, 386, re) 39 Semi-Pelagians, 508-9 Senate, the Roman, 48, 70, 83, 88, 417-18 Seneca, 189, 192, 194, 195, 203, 204, 285, 493 Senones, 418 Sephiroth, 124-5 Septimius Severus, emperor, 72-3, 197, 264, 271, 274, 543 Septuagint, 5, 106, 148, 154, 155, aa oie 277, 482, 486, 490, 1g, 55 Sepulchre, Church of Holy, 575 Serapeum demolished, 406—8 Serapion, bp. of Antioch, 144n. Serapion, archdeacon, 443 Serapion, monk, 446 Serapis, 182—4 and n., 270, 406-7 Serena, 419 Serennius Granianus, 59 Sergius Paulus, 36 sermons, 579 Serpent, Gnostic, 135-6, 590 Seth, 594 Sethians, 136 Severian, bp. of Gabala, 444 Severus, emperor, 88, 89, 90. See ALEXANDER and SEPTIMIUS Severus (Claudius), philosopher, 189 Severus, delator, 71n. Shahpoor I., king of Persia, 150, 549 Shahpoor II., 549, 551, 554 Sheol, 9n. Shepherd, see HERMAS . Sibylline Oracles, 5, 6n., 69, 515 ‘signa’ taken into Jerusalem, 23-4 © SEN ARES vad ied c RARER Soe a a 644 signs of coming trials, 85 Silence, 593 Silvanus, 38 Silvia, a pilgrim, 583 Silvester, pope, 293, 304, 321, 519 Simon, king of Judaea, 10 Simon ben Jochai, 124 Simon son of Kamith, 23 Simon the Just, 3n., 6 Simon Magus, 41, 95, 107, I129n., 135, 143, 244n., 252, 468 Simonians, Nestorians called, 468 Simplicianus, 495 Siniatic-Syriac MS., 547 Singara, 542, 550n. Sinuessa, synod at, 262 Siricius, bp. of Rome, 413, 520-1, 564, 571, 573 Sirmium, 344; see COUNCILS, CREEDS, SYNODS Sisinnius, a Novatian, 400 Sixtus II., bp. of Rome, 262, 598 Sixtus IIL, bp. of Rome, 528-9, 530 slavery, 71, 195, 238-9, 285 Smectymnuus controversy, 113 Smith (G. A.), 16n. Smith (Robertson), 2n. Smyrna, 60, 111, 112; church of, 112, 119, 610 Socrates, philosopher, 5n., 176 Socrates, Church historian, 110, 252n., 270n., 298 and n., 304n., 306, 307, 318n., 324n., 332n., 3330+, 3350-, 3370-, 339N-, 342n., 345n., 346n., 348n., 349n., 352, 360n., 363n., 366n., 368n., 369n., 370n., 372n., 3770., 380n., 39In., 392n., 393N., 395n., 399 and n., 400, 407, 426, 44In., 442n., 443n., 446n., 447n., 448n., 449n., 450n., 458n., 461, 464n., 465n., 475, 584 sodalitates, 5'7n. Solomon, 2! soothsayers, Etruscan, 523 Sopater, 322, 323 Sophia, Gnostic, 589, 590, 593, 594 Sophia, church of, 449 and n. Sosioch, 124 Sosius besieges Jerusalem, 17 Sotades, Egyptian poet, 300 sources of Gnosticism, 122-3 INDEX. Sozomen, Church historian, 306, 322n., 324n., 334N., 335m», 336n., 339n., 340n., 344n., 345n., 346n., 348n., 363n., 368n., 372, 373N., 374N., 377N., 379N., 407N., 408n., 440, 441n., 442n., 443n., 446n., 447N., 448n., 449n., 450n., 456n., 469n., 523, 552n. Spain, 84, 2440., 409-10, 479. 520-1 Spartianus (Aelius), 72n, Spiridion of Cyprus, 306 Spirit (Living), Manichaean, 150 Spirit, Montanist doctrine of, 174 spiritual gifts, see CHARISMATA pix (Dr.), 403n., 457n., 478, 78n Stanley (Dean), Eastern Church, 253, 305n., 306n., 315n., 316n., 318n., i ee «jf | $240, 332n., 465n., 473n., 603 — Stanton (Dr.), 10n., 27n., 48n., g6n., 97n., IOT Stauros, or Horus, 593, 594, 595 Stephanus, assassin of Domitian, 108n. Stephen he )> 33» 34, 1123 Festival ol, Stephen, ioe: of Antioch, 339, 340n Bhi ‘bp. of Rome, 262, 269, 2 9 Stephens (Dean), 441n., 444n., 447n., 448n., 522n. 439, 523 442n., 4751-5 Stilicho, 419, Stoicism, 65, 158, 189, I9I—5, 196, 200, 204 Stromatets, Clement’s, 149 sub-deacons, 218, 227 substantia, 377, 454, 456 Sucat, see PATRICK Suetonius, 38, 43, 44n., 48, 51, §2n., 247n. suicide approved by Stoics, 193-4 Sulpicius Severus, 324n., 346n., 41on., 413n. curdgera, 457 Sunday, observance of, 287, 398n.; 580 sun-worship, 184; see ZOROASTER superstition, Christian, 240—2 Sursum corda, 577 Susanna, in catacombs, 608 er Py ai Ss wi a ai ua ee NL ee Seen er oe es INDEX. Swete (Dr.), 5n., 133n., 174n., 2770., ‘ag: 403n., 457n. Sychem, 15 symbolism in catacombs, 606 Symeon, bp. of Jerusalem, 58, 60. Symeon the Stylite, 468 and n. Symmachus, translator, 277 Symmachus, Roman senator, 414— 416, 418, 420 Symmachus, praefect, 527 synagogue, 3, 32, 56, 212, 219 Syncellus, 8n. Synesius, bishop, 426, 434—9, 445, 573 SyNnops: at Alexandria, 303, 368, 376, 378, 445 5 at Ancyra, 345, 346n.; at Antioch, 167, 456 ; at Biterrae, 377; at Bostra, 165 ; at Burdegala (Bordeaux), 411 ; at Carthage, 267, 268n., 504, 525, 526-7; at Cirta, 292n. ; at Constantinople, 349, 377n., 470; at Diospolis (Lydda), 505, 525; at Hippo, 498; at Lampsacus, 379; at Milevis, 525; at Milan, 342, 343, 356; of the Oak, 448, 449, 522; at Philip- popolis, 339; at Rome, 294, 335, 456, 463; at Saragossa, 409-10; at Sirmium, 342, 344; at Telepte, 521; at Tyana, 386; at Tyre, 308, 317, 332n., 388. See COUNCILS Syracuse, catacombs at, 597 Syriac MS. of Clement’s Epistle, 107 Syriac Letters of Ignatius, 114 Syriac Version of N. T., 547 Syrian Christianity, 40, 542—7, 5 Syrian theology, 543-4 Syrianus, praefect, 343 Syzygies, doctrine of, 143 Tabennesi, monastery, 537 Tacitus, emperor, 82 Tacitus, historian, 43, 47, 50n., 104, 182, 183n., 249, 285, 6In. 5 Tall Brothers, 446 Talmud, 24, 126 Tara, 563 Targums, 94, 155, 547. Tarsians, Pseudo-Ignatius to, 113 645 Tatia, nurse, 248 Tatian, 66, 144, 543, 547, 555 Tattam (Archdeacon), 114 Taurobolium, Mithraic rite, 185 Taurus, praefect, 348 Taylor (Dr. C.), 102n., 103n, Te Deum, 424 teachers and prophets, 213, a14, 215 Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, see DIDACHE Templars, Knights, 152 Temple of Jerusalem, 6, 17, 18-19, 31, 32, 33, 48, 97n., 99; attempt to rebuild, 362-3 temples (heathen), 365-6, 370, 405—8 tenuiores, 217N. Terebinthus, 149 Tertullian, 8n., 42, 45, 46, 48, 51n., 53n-, 54, 57, 63n., 64, 70, 72, 73n., 75-6, 92n., 105, 118, 120n., 138, 141, 146, 147 and n., 154, 164n., 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175; 176, 179, 185, 189, 203, 204, 206-7, 208, 210n.,217n., 22In., 225, 230, 231n., 233, 235, 237, 238n., 241n., 258, 260, 263—5, 288, 313n., 406n., 454, 456, 471, 543n., 585, 600, 603, 610n., 613, 615 Teutons, 559, 560, 566 Thaddaeus, sent to Abgarus, 41 Thalia, Arius’s, 303 Thecla, 49-50 and n. ; see ACTS Themistius, orator, 69, 359 Theocracy, 9, 22, 23 Theodora, 84n. Theodore Askidas, 546n. Theodore of Mopsuestia, 440, 447, 454, 457-8, 466, 469, 474-5, 506, 546 Theodoret (bp. of Cyrus), historian, I10, 136n., 202n., 303n., 310n., 330n., 346n., 363n., 367n., 371n., 374n., 378n., 408n., 428, 442n., 443n., 456n., 464, 469, 470, 471-2, 473; 475, 546, 547n., 552n., 556n., 558n. Theodosian Code, 367, 580 Theodosidus, 392n. Theodosius I., emperor, 88n., 392— 433 passim, 439, 451, 479, 520 646 Theodosius II., 463, 464, 467—72, 534-5» 550 Theodoti, namesakes, 164, 169-70 Theodotion, Version of, 276, 277 Theodotus, Gnostic, 137, 595 Theognostes, Gallican bishop, 412 Theognostus, 168 Theologus, title of Gregory of Nazianzus, 402 . theology, scientific, 153, 156-7 Theonas, bp. of Alexandria, 85 Theonas, friend of Arius, 303, 307, 315 Theophanies, 160n. Theophilus, bp. of Antioch, 65n., 161, 173, 208 Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, 406—8, 426, 438, 441, 444— 449, 466, 488, 522 Theophilus, Gothic bishop, 559 Theophorus, surname of Ignatius, 110 Theophronius of Tyana, 337 Theotecnus, Neo-Platonist, 86, 91, 196 Theotimus, Gothic bishop, 447n. Beordkos, 458, 459, 460, 464, 469 Therapeutae, 270 Thermae, Valerian at, 80 Thessalonica: church of, 38; edict of, 398; riot and massacre at, 428, 439 Thessalonians, Epistles to, 51n., g6n. Thomas (St.), 41, 42, 187, 543; Gospel of, 136, 144n. Thomas Aquinas, 54n., 476 Thomas of Harkel, 547 Thraseas, martyr, 66 ‘Three Chapters’, 546 and n. Thucydides, 421 Thundering Legion, 69-70 and n. ‘ Thyesteian banquets’, 67, 613 Tiberias, city, 22 Tiberius, emperor, 22, 23, 35, 48, 105, 106 Tillemont, 75, 293n., 534n. Timothy (St.), 38, 116, 131, 213n. ; Epistles to, 96n., 108n., 131 Timothy, bp. of Alexandria, 395 Tiridates, 552-3 Titus, emperor, 104, 247 Titus (St.), 37, 213n.; Epistle to, 38n., 131 Titus, bp. of Bostra, 371 INDEX, Tixeront, 547n. Tobit, in catacombs, 608 Toledo, Council of, 259, 260 Tome of Leo L, 471 and n., 473, 474, 536—8; of Damasus, 456 tongues, gift of, 214 Torquemada, 289 ‘town coachman’, 484, 490 tradttores, 291—5, 497 Trajan, emperor, 43, 54—8, 59, 77, 103, 119, 204, 542, 598; reply to Pliny, 45, 530-, 57 Tralles, 111 ; Trallians, Ignatius writes to, III Transfiguration, 173 Travels of Peter, 143 Trent, Council of, 486 Tréves, 411, 417, 597 Trim, 563 Trinity : word first used, 161, 173; doctrine of, 167, 171—4, 230 298, 308 Tropici, 390n. Tryphaena, queen, 49 Trypho, Justin’s dialogue with, 159 Tiibingen, School of, 38n., 93—7, 106, 114, 118 Turner (C. H.), 60n. Two Natures, doctrine of, 451—78 Tychonius, Donatist, 499 Typhos, 435n. Tyre; synod at, 308, 317, 332n., © 388 ; church at, 575 Ueberweg, 155n., 186n., 200n., 202n. Ulfilas, 301, 559-60 Ulysses, 436 Unction, 32 vbrédoracis, see HYPOSTASIS Ursacius, Arian bishop, 315, 345, 347—9; 376, 539 Ursacius, Count, 294, 295 Ursicinus, anti-pope, 527 Ussher (Abp.), 113, I15 Utch-Kilise, 553 19In., Vahan, 554-5 Vaharan, see VARANES Valens, emperor, 376, 379, 380, 384, 391-2, 393, 394, 494, 417, 431, 440 Valens, bp. of Mursa, 315, 342, 345» 347—9, 350, 379 559 ? : aa eV ee INDEX. Valentinian I., emperor, 286, 367, 376, 379; 392, 404, 409, 415, 422, 431 Valentinian II., 392, 401, 409, 418-19, 422, 426, 430 Valentinian III., 471, 516, 533-4, 540 Valentinians, 129n., 137, 144, 146, 252, 312, 371 Valentinus, 134, 137, 138, 146, 312, 313n., 592—5 Valeria, 84n., 85, 87, gin. Valerian, emperor, 79, 87, 549, 579; second edict of, 80; per- secution under, 80, 261, 598, 601, 611 Valerian, Count of Africa, 505 Valerius, bp. of Hippo, 496, 571 Valesius, 146n., 347n., 366n. Valla (Laurentius), 322 Vandals, 501, 515—17, 560-1 Van Manen (Dr.), 93n, Varanes I., 150, 548 Varanes V., 550, 554 Varro, 513 Vartan (St.), 554 Varus, governor of Syria, 22 Vatican collection, 616 Vedelius, 113 Vespasian, 51, 52n., 104, 158, 197, 247, 248 Vestals, 418, 419 Veturius, Roman general, 85 Vickers, History of Herod, 21n. Victor, bp. of Rome, 121n., 169, 170, 251, 254 Victor, Roman presbyter, 304 Victoricus, friend of St. Patrick, 562 Victorinus, rhetorician, 368, 495 Victory, Altar of, 416, 417—19 Vienne, 358, 526; see LYons Vigilantius, 486-7 Vigilius, pope, 599 Vincent, bp. of Capua, 339, 342 Vincentius, Roman presbyter, 304 Vincentius of Lerins, 509, 560 Vindicianus, proconsul, 492 vine, emblematic, 602 Virgil, 288, 421, 616 Virgin Birth, 460, 476 virginity, 109, 483 Vision of Constantine, 280-1 and n., 361 Visions of Perpetua, 73n. Volkmar, 97n., 114 14I, 647 Vopiscus, 183 Voss (Isaac), 113 Vulgate, 486 Waterland, 232 Wednesday observed as a fast, 102, Weismann, 510n. Weiss, 114. Weizsacker, 97n. Wellhausen, 2n. Wesseley (Prof.), 78n. Westcott (Bp.), 3n., 8n., 9n., r1n., 270., 34n., 40n., 96n., 108n., Ir5n., 116n., 118n., 134, 157, 159n., 166 Westminster Abbey, 604, 611 widows, 214, 218, 235, 573 Williams, 130n. Wilpert (Mgr.), 599 Wisdom of God, 143, 154, 155, 308, 571; see SOPHIA Woman, First, 589 women, 572; ministry of, 573 Woodham, 208n. Word, doctrine of, 161, 155-6, 176, 310, 340n., 452, 477, 5373 see Locos, MEMRA Wordsworth (Bp.), 114, 212n., 213n., 215n., 216n., 217n., 220n., 227N., 394D., 570m, 572n., 573n. worship, 219 Wright (A.), 478 Wright (W.), 5510. Xenophanes, 186 Ximenes, cardinal, 289 Xystus, bp. of Rome, see S1xTus Yoma, Indian god, 183 Yetsirah, Book of, 124 York, 89, 293 Zacchaeus in catacombs, 608 Zaeharias, priest, 25 Zacharias, pope, 337n. Zadok, 10 Zahn, 342n. Zarvana Akarana, 123 Zealots, 23 648 INDEX. Zechariah, prophet, 25 Zohaz, book of, 124 Zend-avesta, 123-4, 184 Zonaras, 238n. Zeno, emperor, 538, 541 Zoroaster, religion of, 123, 184, 467, — Zeno, martyr at Gaza, 372 548-9, 554, 555» 550 Zeno, philosopher, 191, 194 Zosimus, martyr, 112 Zenobia, queen, 81, 167 Zosimus, bp. of Rome, 505, 525, Zephyrinus, bp. of Rome, 164, 170, 526-7, 530, 538 254, 255, 257, 2605, 598, O11 Zosimus, historian, 321, 322n., 447, zodiac, signs of, 150 523 Tai EN aca tes fr iene in, «yr “wozsceKiyy uyor yo anz+ re ‘ahqmuby go Keusnol purvy Jo ad yey “eneeyd7 pue ajdoulz *UB}EUOD 02 YOORUY WIRY SPOOI UIDY ———— Ov 0 02 Ov YONTIW VISV annie ee rete ee # ri : the Se nt meee 5 menrrtinningsaale esa , od a 4 5 a 4 p 4 a7 9 - a | Age 7 > A Ses ~ ry ah | SFilf 3 F ; : : $ ne a 3 ae: eee . a a 5 4). < 3 t : As i ‘~ = a ke. ’ i : dl = al, te é F F : ; = ; ae) ee FOS : wey" pf Miratiaat Ny x . 2 4 : e ms : E % 2 : 7 e vt 5 : : - + 4 " = ; 5 7 P : ra Py A * 4 a Eon wel ee 4 } bi < - ae a ok orate (ae ll ee ee , P i e elles . OMXYRHYNCUS .«. LYCOPOLIS™ Poesy PT shewing.- DESERTS ano MONASTERIES ——=- Scale of Statute Miles 20 0 40 80 30 E. of Gr. -~ a — y S " * 1 “¥ aAsVOATMNOD MALAA a i aut oe LUFT, 27 ite B78 eee MAP to illustrate the ARIAN CONTROVERSY. Mere Councils are dated The pecked line indicates the great road. between Rome, Constantinople and the East. Scale of Statute Miles. 200 100 0 200 400 Sept net = o - airy etm Se ee ee eee, ee ee ee ae 2 Ot nee pate at © Loreen qzetty cartes dine ts Oh: oer? at SST RN TRO wSsty — Pn et RE Mp i a Se Lin te A ; ; f ae . fs a ay * 4 ae ‘ ng Mer € , v Pm hs : oe ¥ a ill | | | [ | il | i | ill ToL UT Re aa mp ey ar eames = ae ae agen ween: aieesars $i PAE ace gegen Oe re eee Teter = oe Biors .S peas er ook anteater Ae Rea at Si Sai openeeh seseteven Ten